Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendment: No. I, after clause 1, insert the following new clause:
 . References in the Copyright Act 1956 to the reduction of any work to a material form, or to the reproduction of any work in a material form, shall include references to the storage of that work in a computer.

Mr. William Powell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2.

Mr. Powell: Perhaps it would not be inappropiate on this final day of consideration of private Members' legislation during this Session to say that it is an extraordinary and fascinating steeplechase which enables hon. Members who have won the ballot in November to emerge in July with a piece of legislation which, all being well, will be for the public good and which has achieved the support of both Houses. In bringing my Bill to this stage, I have been greatly assisted in the other place by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State who efficiently and expeditiously handled the conduct of the Bill.
Discerning hon. Members will notice that these amendments bear a striking resemblance to those which were on the Order Paper in February. For tactical reasons, they were not dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee. I am grateful for the assistance that I have received from all parts of the House which enabled the Bill to jump the queue and get out of the way of some controversial private Members' legislation, and for the amendments that at one stage were contemplated being dealt with in this House to be dealt with in another place. In other words, today we are dealing with matters contemplated for this House, but which for tactical reasons were postponed to the other place.
The amendments are straightforward, especially the first one. Even if I tried, I could not take up much time speaking to it. There was a spelling error in the long title of the Bill when it passed its Second Reading on 22 February, which relates to the word "programme". Many hon. Members are rightly proud of traditional English spelling, and the original spelling of the word

"programme" was in the English form. The other place has passed an amendment to change the spelling to the American form—without the second "m" and the final "e". Although many hon. Members may be reluctant to accept the amendment, there is a good reason in law why I ask the House to approve the amendment, which is that the American spelling, riot only conforms with international usage, but is approved in our courts. If the House passed a Bill which conformed with traditional English spelling, there is a real risk that a clever lawyer — through my professional background, I know many such lawyers—will say that the Bill does not apply to computer software programs because the Bill does not talk about such programs.
I ask the House to agree to the first amendment because the courts have approved the American spelling in this connection.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I hear and understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. Like me, my hon. Friend is an absolute patriot and is devoted to the English language, its poetry, its quaintness and everything else. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but with his knowledge of the courts and of legal procedure surely he will accept that we should have the English spelling. It is the English language, and this is England. This is the House of Commons of the British people, and it would seem appropriate to pass laws in which we enshrine our language rather than someone else's abuse of our language. Surely my hon. Friend would feel that, were we to go ahead as he initially intended, the courts are not an ass and would eventually settle down and understand that Parliament intended that the English language should be used in its full glory and should not be abused.

Mr. Powell: The protest registered by my hon. Friend is entirely appropriate, but I hope that he will be content with speaking for the instincts of most hon. Members present today and will not pursue the matter. I assure him that I have accepted the amendment only because I know that the spelling introduced by their Lordships is the correct spelling in law. I would not wish the Bill to run into technical difficulties. I ask my hon. Friend not to pursue the matter, but to be content with that robust and patriotic protest.
Try as I may, I would be hard put to outline usefully any further reasons for accepting the amendment, and I shall leave it there.
The other amendment relates to a more substantial matter. The House will recall that it was first raised in the House nearly a year ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) in a Bill that he introduced under the ten-minute rule. He was given leave to introduce the Bill, but it did not proceed to a Second Reading. When I had the good fortune to draw a place in the ballot for private Members' legislation, I decided to take up his Bill.
The Bill which I introduced and which was given a Second Reading on 22 February differed from my hon. and learned Friend's Bill in one important way. His Bill included a definition of the concept of "material form" in relation to computer programs. However, my Bill contained no such definition. Their Lordships decided to introduce what will in due course, assuming that the House approves the amendment, be section 2 of the statute.
The expression "material form" is a key concept in copyright law. It was used in the Copyright Act 1956 to


define the acts restricted by copyright, which includes reproducing the work in any material form. That is found in section 2(5) of the Act. It is also used in section 49(4) to fix the time at which a copyright work is made and, therefore, to identify the author. It is defined as the time at which a work is first reduced to writing or to some other material form. However, the expression "material form" is not defined in the Copyright Act as it currently stands.
9.45 am
A potential problem arises where a computer program does not start its life in conventional written form. The difficulty is important in commercial terms, because computer programs are often keyed directly into a computer by typing in from a keyboard without first being written down in a conventional form. Therefore, the electrical signals formed in the computer's memory are, in practice, the program's first physical embodiment. Similarly, copying is often carried out by loading the contents of a disc, cassette or other permanent storage device directly into the computer's memory for further processing. However, a special characteristic of the electronic memory of most computers is that it is volatile in the sense that the memory is lost when the power supply is turned off.
It has been suggested that the electronic representation of a computer program such as that formed in the computer's memory or that displayed on a VDU screen is not sufficiently permanent to be a material form for the purposes of fixing the time at which the copyright work is made, or of establishing the existence of an infringing copyright.
I shall give the House some examples of the problems envisaged if uncertainty remained as to whether forms in which computer software may be stored or reproduced are not covered by the phrase "material form". First, a programmer creating a program without first writing it down might go out to lunch; a pirate might then come in and print out the program from the computer's memory. If electronic representation in the computer's memory is not a material form, the pirate would be the author for copyright purposes. Secondly, a program entered directly into a computer's memory that was not written down on paper or recorded on tape or disc might be transmitted through a computer network. If it is intercepted by a pirate who prints it out, the pirate might be treated as the original author for the purposes of copyright. Thirdly, an infringer might put a computer program on his own random access computer memory rather than copy it on to a disc or tape and, as a result, may not infringe the copyright.
The ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. and learned Friend included a definition of "material form". Unfortunately, when I was preparing this legislation, the view of parliamentary counsel was that it would be impossible to include such a definition that was limited to computer programs without at the same time implying something negative in relation to other copyright work. Therefore, the matter became the subject of substantial negotiations between myself, the computer software industry, which has given me generous support in the preparation and passage of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I am delighted that both sides have reached an accommodation

and that it is now possible to incorporate a definition of "material form" into what will become section 2. It will be:
References in the Copyright Act 1956 to the reduction of any work to a material form, or to the reproduction of any work in a material form, shall include references to the storage of that work in a computer.
The amendment was introduced in Committee in the other place on 5 June.
This is a somewhat technical explanation, but it is important to get it on record why it is necessary because it is not a matter that the House has had to discuss until now. We are now in line with the Green Paper recommendation and the Bill confirms that the act of loading a computer program or any other literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work into a computer without the copyright owner's consent will continue to be an infringement of copyright. The amendment will also confirm that any work, be it a computer program, novel or any other type of work that is written directly into a computer, will qualify for copyright protection at the moment of its creation within the computer.
It follows that clause 2 is intended to clarify that if any existing work is copied into a computer, of which an important example is the incorporation of an author's work in a computer database, this constitutes reproduction in a material form, requiring the copyright owner's consent. I hope that that will be regarded as a comprehensive statement of why the House should accept my suggestion that we should agree with the Lord's amendment.
We have reached this stage on 5 July. How long ago the Second Reading in February seems to be. This is the first of the private Members' Bills to be discussed today. There will be others later. I heard on the radio this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) being ambitious and optimistic about the prospects of his Bill, which will be discussed later. The House is interested in the matter that I am introducing, but I hope that it will be possible to reach my hon. Friend's Bill in due course.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise for leaving the Chamber for part of my hon. Friend's speech, but I had an important and urgent telephone call to make. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that these things happen and understands and forgives my temporary regrettable absence.
I have looked at the amendment, and while I was out my hon. Friend may have covered the point I am about to make about it. He explained earlier that his first amendment was about mutilating the English word "programme" and turning it into the American word "program". However, I do not see the word "program" in the first amendment. Will my hon. Friend briefly explain something to the House—I regret it if he has done so already—to satisfy my curiosity and my concern about the Bill? If he has not done so already, I should be grateful if he would connect the words of the amendment with his reluctant desire to inflict an injustice on the English language.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend is right about the first amendment. It refers to new clause 1. I apologise to my hon. Friend and I am certain that most of the House was able to follow me in what I said, but in giving my reasons for the two amendments I identified as the first amendment amendment No. 2 and as the second amendment amendment No. 1. I hope that there is not the slightest doubt about what I have been referring to. Not for the first


time, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing me down to earth and ensuring that we proceed in both an accurate and a common-sense way.
The House knows that I regard this as a very important measure for the future of the computer software industry. On Second Reading, I said that estimates show that losses through unlawful piracy and copying of software in 1983 totalled £150 million. In 1984, the sum was almost certainly greater than that. There is not the slightest doubt that the computer software industry has been heavily undermined by the growing practice of commercial piracy. Pending wider reform on copyright law which will come in due course, and which we hope to have the opportunity to discuss in a year or two, this Bill deals with a particularly bad practice that is undermining the industry.
I and those who have supported me on both sides of the House have not gone to the lengths that we have gone to to pass ineffective legislation. The Bill is intended to bite, and to bite hard into piracy. The House is aware of the existence of the Federation Against Software Theft, which represents virtually all sections of the computer software industry. It has set up a unit whose job it will be to prepare evidence and to bring to the attention of the police and any other public body occasions on which there have been any commercial infringements of this legislation.
I am delighted to be able to tell the House that a senior, experienced and efficient police officer of the rank of chief superintendent of the metropolitan police has been recruited. He will shortly be at work with a team which he will recruit to bring together all the evidence of piracy. The message must go from the House today to the pirates wherever they may be that their days are over and that hereafter they will face the consequences of their unlawful activities.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on his Bill. There is nothing further that I can say about the Bill or the Lords amendments, which I support for the adequate reasons argued in the other place. I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in future ballots, but I have one remark to make to him. When one is getting a fair wind in this place, it is better not to remain at sea for longer than is absolutely necessary to complete the journey, for fear of delaying colleagues with other equally important business who have been less fortunate in the ballot and for fear of running into less fair weather.

Mr. Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) not only on bringing the Bill to Parliament and through Parliament but on the way that he has spoken. I intervened in his speech, and for the first time in my life had a positive effect on our proceedings in that I was able to help my hon. Friend I am grateful to him for the way that he dealt with my intervention.
This is an incredibly complex issue and people like myself who were at school before computers became part of our way of life feel that anything to do with computers and computing is of the utmost complexity that is best left to other people. My hon. Friend has taken upon himself the task of introducing this Bill and the amendment. It is a difficult but praiseworthy task which he has done exceptionally well. The House and the country should be grateful to him for dealing with this nuisance. The fact that he got his amendments muddled up is nothing, and simply

goes to show how incredibly complex this issue is. It is an appalling state of affairs that after a person has done a great deal of work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. While I am in a tolerant mood, I must remind the hon. Member that we are dealing with narrow amendments and that he must relate his remarks directly to the amendments.

10 am

Mr. Marlow: I am attempting to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise if I am straining your patience; the complexity of the subject is to blame.
Amendment No. 2 deletes part of the title, so that it will read:
An Act to amend the Copyright Act 1956 in its application to computer programs and computer storage.
My hon. Friend's purpose is so to define the title that protection which, sadly, has not been given to those working in computer software will be available to them in future. It is necessary for this protection to be provided in view of the great boom of computers to society. People may work all day and all night only to find that their work has been pirated or plagiarised. A lifetime's work can be rendered valueless.
Because it is important that that protection should be provided, so it is important that the title of the Bill should be clear, and I am pleased to note that not only will the title be clearer but that it will also be shorter. Anything that we can do to reduce the number of words in the written text — I was about to say that we might also try to shorten our speeches too—is of advantage.
I congratulate my hon. Friend. The House is indebted to him for the great service that he has performed in this complex and important sphere.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I, too, have pleasure in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on having introduced an important Bill which, I feel sure, will be speeded on its way today. I have taken part in a number of debates on this subject and am anxious that nothing should stand in the way of the Bil1's progress.
My hon. Friend explained, in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that he had dealt with the amendments in the reverse order. I am not clear, however, why amendment No. 2 is worded in the way in which it appears on the Order Paper. I appreciate that it amends the title, but although amendment No. 2 begins:
Line I, leave out from",
I thought that the Bill commenced with the words:
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty".
In fact, the line 1 to which my hon. Friend is referring in amendment No. 2 begins:
An Act to amend the Copyright Act 1956
which seems to begin before the numbering of lines in the Bill commences. I am anxious to ensure, before agreeing to amendment No. 2, that we are doing something that is valid and will not make nonsense of the measure. I am sure that my hon. Friend has taken the best advice from the Table. Will he enlighten me?
When my hon. Friend dealt with the spelling of the word "program", I was not sure whether he was saying that the High Court had determined that, in future in English


law, the word should be spelt the American way or whether the High Court had been tolerant about the way in which the word could be spelt.

Mr. William Powell: In a High Court case a year or two ago, the Chancery Division approved the American spelling for computer programs only, not generally.

Mr. Thorne: I hope that the High Court will accept both spellings and not confine it in this case. I can think of a number of instances where words are spelt in a variety of ways. One need only think of the greatest literary architect, Shakespeare, to appreciate that a number of different spellings of the same word are normally accepted.
It would be unfortunate if we tied ourselves down to one narrow concept, although I would not stand in way of the Bill over that. I hope that we shall not be confined as a result of a High Court judgment and find that we are restricting our language to the American form.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) on steering his ship through the legislative waters, shortly to arrive at a safe haven.
As my hon. Friend explained, a large number of people in the computer industry at large, many computer users and software authors will heave a sigh of relief when the Bill reaches the statute book. It will be an important day because we shall eliminate the high possibility that has hitherto existed of software authors being rooked of their rightful rewards and of suffering from the attentions of the pirates.
The new clause adds an important new element to the Bill and, on behalf of the Government, I warmly support its insertion. I am pleased that the opportunity was taken in another place to improve what was already an excellent Bill by extending its effect in this way.
The Bill as it left this Chamber for another place some weeks ago was concerned only with the application of copyright law to computer programs. The new clause addresses, in an effective manner, another area of uncertainty that arises out of the interaction between copyright law and computers.
Despite its admirably concise form, the new clause removes two such uncertainties. It deals with two implications of the new technology on the way copyright law works. It is concerned both with the basic question of whether copyright protection is available to works created in computers, and with the no less important issue of whether the act of copying a copyright work into a computer requires the permission of the copyright owner.
It may help if I briefly remind the House how the Copyright Act 1956 is structured to provide protection to authors and other creators of original works, or to those who own or have interest in copyright by virtue, for example, of assignment or licence or of their position as employers of the creator. The Act defines copyright as the exclusive right to do, and to authorise others to do, certain acts—known as restricted acts—in relation to the work that is the subject of copyright. One has to look first, though, at the word "work" to determine whether copyright subsists in the first place.
The Act states that copyright shall subsist in every original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, subject to certain conditions as to matters such as the nationality and place of residence of the author and the country of first publication. This applies both to published and unpublished material. There are no formalities associated with the subsistence of copyright in the United Kingdom. Copyright protection exists from the moment of creation of the work, with no requirement of registration or of any copyright notice on the work itself. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that very commonly — indeed, almost universally in published material — a conventional copyright notice is affixed to works, consisting of a small "c" in a circle, the name of the copyright owner, and the year of publication. I should explain that such a notice does not have any function in establishing the subsistence of copyright in this country. It has two roles. First, it plays a part in relation to the subsistence of copyright in certain foreign countries, most notably the United States of America. Secondly, it provides a visible reminder to the world at large that copyright is being claimed in the work, and by whom it is claimed. Thus it has practical use in this country, but is not a legal prerequisite for copyright protection.
To return to the question of what constitutes a "work", or more strictly an "original work", the use of qualifications like "literary" or "artistic" does not imply that a work has to have what would conventionally be regarded as literary or artistic merit to attract copyright protection. Aesthetic excellence is not a necessary qualification.
The courts have long since established this principle, and there have over the years been many examples of works, and types of works, which have been afforded copyright protection as "literary works" without possessing, or indeed claiming to possess, any vestige of literary merit whatsoever. These have included calendars, directories, football coupons, mathematical tables and railway timetables, and many other equally mundane items. More recently, an injunction has been granted on the basis that the sequences of randomly selected letters used in newspaper bingo games are subject to copyright. The common key to the establishment of copyright in all these cases has been that substantial independent skill, creative labour or judgment has been exercised in the creation of the new work.
My reason for placing such emphasis on this point is to stress the wide range of material that comes within the ambit of copyright protection. When one thinks, for example, of databases — great stores of information brought together, often at great cost, and with great commercial potential for exploitation and dissemination —one can recognise the immense practical significance of the fact that copyright protection has long been regarded as appropriate to this general class of material, to collations of meaningful information. The impact of computer technology in this sector has been immense and revolutionary, and has raised central questions in relation to copyright that the new clause seeks to answer.

Dr. Bray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the support that the Government are giving the Bill, but is the Minister not going rather wide of the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening carefully to the Minister. I hope that he will refer directly to the amendment.

Mr. Butcher: I was referring to the first of the two questions which the new clause will resolve. That question is, put simply, when someone creates an original new work — a work of the type that certainly qualifies as a "literary work" within the broad meaning of term that I have already discussed — and when that creation is carried out directly in a computer memory, has the work been "reduced to a material form", and does it therefore qualify for copyright protection? The question arises whenever a work is composed by someone typing directly into a computer keyboard. This is one of the key points to which my hon. Friend the Member for Corby addressed himself in moving the amendment. That work may mean a novelist or some other sort of writer typing an article or a chapter of a new book into a word processor, or it may, as I have aleady indicated, mean a scientist, an engineer or a statistician putting together data in a new manner in a computerised database.
The need for protection in such cases is I believe, obvious, and the principle that such protection should apply is every bit as sound when a computer is used as when precisely the same material is put down, much more laboriously and less flexibly, on paper. Nevertheless, the question whether protection does in fact subsist when a computer is used has not been resolved in the courts, and uncertainty therefore remains. It may be that present law would be found to give this protection already if the issues were tested, but as long as the legal uncertainty remains, creators of new material will lack confidence in such protection. Computer technology needs to be seen as a support to the author, not as a threat to the legal protection upon which his livelihood, and that of his employers, rests.
10.15 am
The need for clear protection for a new work while it still rests only in the essentially transient form of computer memory is clear. It is vulnerable, in that form, to misappropriation. This has already been forcefully argued by the noble Lord who introduced these measures in another place, using the example of the creator of new material who left his brainchild on his computer memory while he went out to lunch, to find on his return that someone else had printed it out and had thus undoubtedly "reduced it to material form". That the law as it now stands leaves any doubt at all about the true authorship of the work in these circumstances must clearly be wrong. Therefore, my hon. Friend, in bringing forward the amendment, is doing the House a great service in seeking to eliminate an area of uncertainty.

Mr. William Powell: My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) raised two issues to which I shall respond briefly. First, he asked whether the amendment, in referring to "Line 1", is directed to the long title. The amendment appears under "In the Title" and refers to the first line of the title rather than of the Bill. I take my hon. Friend's point about "program". I have explained why that form of spelling should be adopted in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) will not push the matter any further.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

HOSPITAL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "Regional Health Authority" and insert
health authority in England and Wales and to each Health Board in Scotland

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8.

Mrs. Currie: The prime mover of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), first became interested in the complaints procedure in the National Health Service during his serious illness in 1984. This morning he is in hospital as an outpatient on a dialysis machine. I am sure that we all hope that he is feeling much better already and that before too long it will be possible to find a permanent solution for his illness. Meanwhile, I have been asked to move acceptance of the amendments. I feel honoured to have the opportunity to be associated with this important Bill.
As the Bill completed all its stages in the House without amendment on 22 February, and virtually without criticism, I should explain why we are prepared to accept all eight amendments. Without the amendments, the Bill will not do what it is intended to do. It would merely perpetuate the present somewhat unsatisfactory procedure for complaints. As the law stands, the Secretary of State., under section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977., has the power to give directions to the health authorities, and they must comply. My right hon. Friends who have served as Secretary of State for Social Services over the years have taken this duty seriously.
The result is that we have a plethora of complaints procedures, none of which is entirely effective. The procedures were listed by Lord Colwyn in another place on 17 April. It would be appropriate to read them into the record. Lord Colwyn said:
They are: the civil law, with particular relevance to negligence, assault and defamation; the criminal law, with particular relevance to drugs legislation and certification; the General Medical Council and General Denial Council, concerned both with serious professional misconduct and fitness to practice; the ombudsman in matters other than clinical judgment; health circular No. (81)5, which deals with complaints regarding clinical judgments; HM(66)15, which is concerned with methods of dealing with complaints by patients; HM(61)112, which deals with matters concerning the hospital doctor's personal conduct, professional conduct and professional competence; HM(60)45, which is concerned with the prevention of ham to patients resulting from physical or mental disability of hospital staff.
We have also the service committee and tribunal procedure which is concerned with the general practitioner's terms of service and under which he can be fined or excluded from providing general medical service. Finally, there are the inquiries set up by the Secretary of State under Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977.—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 17 April 1985; Vol. 462, c. 779.]
Recently, the Secretary of State has made use of the powers under that section in the inquiry into legionnaire's disease at Staffordshire hospital. However, my noble Friend missed out several procedures. It is amazing what one finds once one starts digging. There are also letters to


the health authorities on complaints procedures of 9 December 1966 and 27 July 1970, health notice HN(78)39 of April 1978. I think that that is an exhaustive list, but I stand willing to be corrected.
The main document in use is HC81(5), issued in April 1981, which makes it clear that it is a "memorandum of guidance" and therefore has no statutory power. If the Bill has any purpose and if these amendments have any value, that gap will be closed. It is vital that we should have, for the first time, a Bill that firmly states:
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give to each health authority in England and Wales and to each Health Board in Scotland such directions … as appear to him necessary
to achieve a proper complaints procedure.
I should like to examine the amendments in more detail. If we are to make the Bill work, we must accept all of them. Clause 1 lays a duty on a Secretary of State to exercise his existing power to give directions to health authorities so as to require the establishment and publicising of specified procedures for dealing with complaints in all NHS hospitals. The amendment extends the categories of authority to which such directions will have to be given to district health authorities in England and Wales, health boards in Scotland and special health authorities.
As previously drafted, the Bill covered only regional health authorities, and therefore applied only to England. There are no regional health authorities in Wales and Scotland, and the Bill is intended to apply in both areas. Regional health authorities in England are not the authorities directly responsible for the management of hospitals. The amendment ensures that the directions required by the Bill to be given are addressed to all authorities with hospital management responsibility. The other amendments follow from this proposed change which alters the Bill fundamentally and will make it much more effective.
Under clause 1, without the Lords amendments, there will be precious little improvement in the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury drew attention on Second Reading. If the regional health authorities were responsible, nothing much would happen, even with the statutory obligations as laid down in the original Bill. It is worth remembering that my hon. Friend's horrendous experience—when he was treated at three different hospitals, none of which appeared to have a complaints procedure and certainly none of which informed him of one — occurred despite the plentiful supply of circulars and instructions which I outlined earlier. We must do better than that.
The key objective is to pin responsibility firmly on those bodies that run patients' services — the district health authorities. The regional health authorities are remote. In some regions, they cover thousands of square miles. They cover scores of hospitals.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend's argument. It was suggested in the original Bill that the matter should be looked after by regional health authorities, but it is now suggested that district health authorities should be responsible. What was in people's minds originally when they thought that this matter would be better dealt with at

regional level? Will my hon. Friend tell the House why that is so, because there may be potent arguments in that direction?

Mrs. Currie: I believe that the case was that the regional health authorities were regarded as the prime movers in England and Wales and that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury had not realised that there were no such bodies in Wales. The main contact between the Secretary of State and the health service in the country at large is through the accountability reviews that he exercises during the year with regional health authorities. The Secretary of State does not normally meet the district health authorities. I believe that that is why the regional health authorities were, before the other place scrutinised the Bill, regarded as the appropriate authorities. However, in my view and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, they are not the appropriate authorities. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
The regional health authorities may be funding certain activities — for example, regional specialties such as cardiology and kidney transplantation. However, the district health authorities carry the can for what goes on in the hospitals which they are responsible for running.
The Lords amendments to clause 1 have several other effects. They include special hospital authorities. These authorities are a legacy of the reorganisations of the NHS in 1974 and 1982. They mainly comprise certain teaching hospitals. There are eight postgraduate teaching hospital special health authorities, which were formerly run by boards of governors. They are the hospitals for sick children, the national hospitals for nervous diseases, Moorfields, the Bethlem Royal hospital and the Maudsley hospital, the national heart and chest hospitals, the Royal Marsden hospital, the Eastman dental hospital and Hammersmith hospital. There are various other special health authorities, including the Central Blood Laboratories Authority, the Health Service Supply Council, the National Health Service Training Authority, the Prescription Pricing Authority, the Rural Dispensing Committee, Rampton Hospital Review Board and the Mental Health Act Commission. Whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury realised that he had left all those out is a moot point, but they will now be included by these amendments.
Current DHSS guidance on complaints under HC81(5) applies to those special health authorities that provide a hospital service to NHS patients. The coverage of the Bill as amended would similarly include special health authorities that provide NHS hospital service.
Not all teaching hospitals are included in the group of special health authorities. The vast majority are run by district health authorities. I have had the privilege of being chairman of the Central Birmingham health authority which had seven teaching hospitals in the midlands, including the celebrated Queen Elizabeth hospital. The teaching hospitals in my area were not covered by special hospital authorities, although there was no technical difference between them. The postgraduate teaching at Queen Elizabeth hospital was similar to the postgraduate teaching at the hospitals to which I have referred.
It is of the utmost importance that our major teaching hospitals are not left out. When a person is acutely ill, when he has a rare condition that is difficult to diagnose or when he is an "interesting case" and liable to be discussed with students or written up as a research


exercise, the gap between the patient and the NHS staff, especially doctors, frequently grows too wide. The apocryphal comment sometimes attributed to such centres of excellence is, "The operation was a great success but the patient died." I swear that that comment has been made to me in the teaching hospitals for which I was responsible. That is not good enough. It is essential that the Bill be extended to all such authorities. When the patient is in such circumstances, it is even more important that he knows how to complain, that his family know how to complain on his behalf and that others associated with his care, including his general practitioner, are able to take up the problems. It is essential that a proper complaints procedures should exist and be made available to the patient.
On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) said:
It should be a requirement of every medical school that there is at least a significant period of formal training for young doctors as to how to approach the patient." — [Official Report, 22 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1381.]
I completely agree. I found in the hospitals for which I was responsible that the people in a teaching hospital who benefited most from a properly conducted investigation of a complaint were the young doctors undergoing training. In the middle of all their studies — of anatomy, pharmacology, surgery, anaesthesia and the like — they are not taught well how to listen to their patients. The patient often knows best. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said on Second Reading, he knew that he was allergic to penicillin. The doctors took absolutely no notice, and landed him in hospital for a further five weeks with a dangerous rash.
10.30 am
We all have constituents who have experienced similar difficulties of getting doctors, especially a young doctor, to take some notice of them and to take them seriously when they say where it hurts or what does not suit them, and how they can be better treated. If, by including special hospital authorities, we can take some small step towards avoiding those things happening, we will have done some little good.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. She is right when she says that patients must be given all possible opportunities to air their complaints against hospitals. Happily, the number of complaints is not too great. Does she agree that, while we are correct to concentrate on ensuring that patients can have their grievances ventilated, we are equally right to stress from time to time that patients also have a responsibility towards the hospitals in which they are treated, and that that responsibility often includes turning up on time, on the right day and at the right place for operations and outpatient treatment? The NHS suffers from a considerable waste of time when patients do not fulfil those responsibilities. There is a social contract between the patient and the National Health Service which both sides should fulfil.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in danger of getting back to a general debate on the Bill. We must concentrate on the Lords amendments which are before the House.

Mrs. Currie: I am glad to accede to what my hon. Friend says.
The third main effect of the amendment is to extend the Bill to Wales and Scotland. I was hoping that we would see some Scottish Members here this morning. It is a pity that there is none. It was always the Bill's intention that it should cover Wales, as clause 2(3) says. However, when my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury originally tabled the Bill, it referred to regional health authorities. It happens that there are no regional health authorities in Wales. The Principality is not covered by a single RHA which answers to the DHSS.
In England, there are 192 health districts organised into 14 regions. In Wales, there are nine health districts answerable directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. There is no regional tier. Therefore, 167 hospitals in Wales — that is the figure at 31 December 1983, and I should be surprised if the DHSS does not know of a few more since then — will be covered by the Bill if the amendment is accepted. It would clearly be unsatisfactory if we did not accept the amendment. We would then have two different systems —one for the English and one for everyone else.

Mr. Marlow: I take that point. There are ways in which Scottish law and administration are somewhat different from ours and there are good reasons for that. It suits the Scots, us and the Welsh. My hon. Friend has just said that there are 192 health districts in England. I am not sure how many regions there are; perhaps she can advise me. It seems to me a rather heavy job and responsibility for the Minister to have to contact each district. As he is getting in touch with them he has, to an extent, to supervise them to ensure that they are carrying out his instructions. If he makes that connection with the regions, he has a far narrower span of control which is more easily policed and effectively carried out. The regions should be allowed to do the job for which they are in place. My hon. Friend has not yet satisfied that argument.

Mrs. Currie: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, there are 14 regions in England. As to the second part, that is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is in office for. I am sure that he recognises that he has that responsibility now, but it is not a statutory responsibility. That is what the Bill will make it. He may give directions, and HC(81)5 is a memorandum of guidance. The health authorities do not have to take any notice of it at all. The Bill, as amended, will insist that the Secretary of State gives those instructions and will then insist that the various health authorities take note.
The regional health authorities will not be excluded by the proposed amendment to clause 1. The Bill will simply refer to health authorities and therefore regional health authorities, district authorities and the other health authorities can be included.

Mr. John Patten: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as she said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself regularly meet the chairmen of the 14 regional health authorities to discuss Health Service matters? It is not correct to say that we stop our discussions at that level on complaints or any other related issue, but through regional health authority chairmen we relate to district health authority chairmen. From time to time we meet the various district health authority chairmen in the different regions. There are more than 190 of them. On those occasions we have the opportunity to discuss issues such


as Health Service complaints procedures. It is important that the impression is not given that we talk only to the regional health authority chairmen on that point.

Mrs. Currie: That is right. I had the privilege of meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at such a meeting about three years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked about Scotland. There is no good reason why Scotland should be excluded. There is every reason why Scotland should be part of the Bill. It was the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on Second Reading. He is delighted to accept the Lords amendments which will extend the scope of the Bill to all parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to move Orders in Council that will make the Bill apply to Northern Ireland as well.

Mr. Marlow: I was not saying, forgive me, that Scotland should not be included. All I was saying was that sometimes Scottish legislation is different from that of England, for good reasons. My hon. Friend is beginning to frighten me. She said that there are 14 regions and 192 health districts. She is saying that the Minister will send out his diktat—let me put it more kindly than that: his ideas and instructions — to the districts and to the regions as to how the complaints procedure should be run. That seems like a recipe for chaos, because the chairman of the regional health authority and the general manager of the district health authority will both be waving their pieces of paper from the Minister. The region will be saying to the district, "We do not like the way in which you are doing it." The district will be saying to the region, "Ah, but I have it in tablets of stone from the Minister."
My hon. Friend should study any large organisation. The one that I know best from my background is the services. She will find that the general might tell the brigadier what to do, but it is up to the brigadier how he organises his colonels. If the generals start telling the colonels what to do, there is chaos.

Mrs. Currie: Far be it from me to answer for my hon. Friend the Minister, who I know wishes to intervene at some stage, but my understanding is that we will have a process of consultation after the Bill becomes law, if it receives the assent of both Houses. That will be an extensive process of consultation. The instructions that will be eventually issued by the DHSS to the health authorities in the Bill, as amended, will take into account comments that are made. I hope that they will produce something that is effective, and in view of the requirement for publicity, to which I shall come, will cope with all the problems identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and the difficulties faced by many of our constituents when they are obliged to go into hospital.
As there are no Scottish Members present, I shall deal with the matters relating to Scotland in a little more detail. Without the amendments, we should not be able to extend the Bill to the Scottish Health Service, and that would clearly be unsatisfactory. There are 15 health boards in Scotland — 12 for the mainland and three island authorities for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. There are no districts. One tier, the health board, is appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for Scotland. The health boards are directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and they cover 365 hospitals.
I have never been in a Scottish hospital. I hope that I never have need of one. My attitude is much the same to all hospitals in Scotland, England and Wales and everywhere else. Any Scottish colleagues who read the Official Report of today's proceedings should not feel discriminated against. The National Health Service owes an enormous debt to Scottish medicine, because there is no doubt that for many years Scottish teaching hospitals have been well ahead of many of their contemporaries elsewhere. Scottish medical schools have led the nation for a long time.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend is treading on dangerous ground there.

Mrs. Currie: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is about to tell us that teaching hospitals in Nottingham will stand with those of the rest of the nation.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Of course.

Mrs. Currie: As many of my constituents are treated there, I agree with him. However, we must recognise that under the Bill, without the amendments, Scottish hospitals would not be included. As the law stands, Scots people would not be assisted by the Bill, unless the House accepts the amendments that I have outlined. They would continue to have the benefit of only the 1977 law and the rather toothless circulars that were sent out as a result. They would continue to have a patchy service with regard to complaints, with some hospitals setting a high standard of producing leaflets telling people what to expect in hospital and how to take up matters that did not satisfy them, and some offering no advice whatsoever and continuing to act as though the patient were merely a case instead of a human being.
That is not satisfactory. By amending the Bill in this way, we shall ensure that patients in Scotland, along with those in Wales in the hospitals under the special hospital boards, as well as in England, will in future have a complaints procedure that is standard across the nation, compulsory and has statutory force. The procedure should ensure that events such as the horrific incidents described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on Second Reading are investigated, put right and dealt with in a manner that can have the confidence and trust of all concerned.
England had 1,923 hospitals as at 31 December 1983. In total, therefore, 2,455 hospitals would be covered by the Bill if the amendments were accepted, 500 of them added by the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are of crucial significance to the many millions of people being treated in NHS hospitals.
An important element in the amended clause 1 would be subsection (1)(b). As amended, the clause will ensure that the Secretary of State will be obliged to require all health authorities to publicise their complaints procedure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said on 22 February:
A complaints procedure about which no one knows is of no use to anyone." — [Official Report, 22 February 1985; Vol. 73, c. 1389.]
I heartily endorse that. This is the first time that health authorities are being told that they must inform patients


about some features of hospital life. It is the first time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have been obliged to lay that duty on them.
We should clarify one or two points about the amended clause. It does not give the patient the right to demand access to his files. It does not challenge hospital security on medical confidentiality. The British Medical Association had some reservations about that in the original Bill. Those matters are being fiercely debated elsewhere, not least later this morning. No doubt the Bill will add to that. However, that is not the purpose of the Bill and the subsection. It says that every health authority must tell patients in all the units for which they are responsible what to do if they are not happy with any aspect of the service that they receive. Up to now it has been said that they "should" tell the patients. Under the Bill as amended, that will be changed to "must". That is a major step forward. It will no longer be possible for the patient to be ignored. It is a most important part of the patients' charter which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury published last September, and which attracted so many favourable comments at the time. In the circulars sent out under the previous legislation, the Secretary of State has suggested that each health authority should produce a leaflet. The appendix to HC(81)5 made some rather heavy-handed suggestions of what might be included. Paragraph 7 of the circular says:
Information booklets should be given to hospital in-patients including, where possible at some suitable time, those admitted through accident and emergency services. These 'hospital booklets' should also be available to patients, on request, in hospital out-patient departments.
Note the word "should", not "must". We shall put in "must" as th Bill goes through both Houses and enters into law. Suggested paragraphs for use in the booklets for patients are contained in appendix 1 to memorandum HC(81)5, which reads:
If you are seeking information when in hospital, the ward sister will generally be the person to speak to in the first instance"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must relate her remarks to the amendments before the House and not go into a general discussion about the Bill.

10.45 am Mrs. Currie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to point out merely that, without the amendments, the Bill would not work. It would simply reiterate and re-establish the existing rather unsatisfactory procedure.

Mr. John Patten: Having been correctly called to order once before by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am fearful of being out of order again. I am sure that you will correct me immediately if I stray over the bounds.
The amendments relate to procedures south and north of the border, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is speaking to them very clearly. Does she agree that one of the issues raised in the circular to which she referred is the most important issue of monitoring, which is covered in paragraph 8? Authorities will have to introduce, both north and south of the border, systematic and effective methods of reviewing complaints. It is no good just having leaflets available. It is important to have the complaints themselves monitored and reviewed systematically.

Mrs. Currie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without such a monitoring system, the complaints

procedure has no purpose. It will serve merely to air people's grievances and not correct the problems that led to the grievances in the first place.
My experience supports my hon. Friend in that. I was a member of the old Birmingham area health authority — a teaching authority, which has since been abolished — in the days when the circular to which my hon. Friend refers was published. We did our best to implement the circular, but, with the best will in the world, we had other priorities at the time, such as getting staff in post, particularly on the reorganisation of the Health Service. There are still hospitals in the group for which I was responsible that do not have such leaflets. It is worth emphasising the importance of ensuring that patients all over the country receive appropriate advice on how to complain. The amendment will ensure that that happens.
We had most fun at the Birmingham maternity hospital, a teaching hospital, where I had been a patient twice, in 1974 and 1977, when I had my two children. The hospital had an excellent leaflet. As a patient, I was able to make use of it. Subsequently, as chairman of the health authority responsible for the hospital. I was able to improve it, particularly by choosing better photographs. It may sound trivial to tell a pregnant girl to bring her toothbrush and some change for the telephone, but I assure the House that it felt like good advice when we woke up in the recovery room. We were grateful.
In future, as I understand it, failure to produce an appropriate leaflet will be grounds for complaint, too. I hope that the health authorities do not regard that as too much of an imposition. They should always remind themselves that they run the hospital not for the doctors, not for the convenience of the staff, not alone for the greater gains of medical research or for the reflected glory of being involved with Britain's best-loved institution, but for the patients. The patients are not a nuisance to he kept quiet—they are not a collection of statistics. That is an attitude that we must eradicate.
Amendment No. 4 is concerned with the Health Service commissioner — [Interruption.] There are eight amendments, and as the Bill had its Second Reading on the nod none of those matters was debated then. It is appropriate that we give proper consideration to them at this time. I hope that the House accepts that.
Amendment No. 4 improves clause 2 by ensuring that it extends to Scotland and thus covers the whole country. I accept that this is not the place to debate the role of the ombudsman — I do not intend to do so — but it is important that we do not hamper his work in any way. He was set up under the National Health Service Act 1977, and section 116 limits his powers in the following way:
Except as hereafter provided, a Commissioner shall not conduct an investigation under this Part of this Act in respect of any of the following matters—

(a) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a right of appeal, reference or review to or before a tribunal constituted by or under any enactment or by virtue of Her Majesty's prerogative, or
(b) any action in respect of which the person aggrieved has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law".

That is very specific.
The ombudsman is a most important part of the overall complaints procedure. He deals with about 120 cases a year. He can take up any issue, whether it has a medical content or not. Having been on the receiving end, as a


health authority chairman, I know the thoroughness and fairness of his work. He and his staff do a great service to the people and the NHS.
Without the amendment, the ombudsman would be rendered helpless, especially in Scotland. He will effectively be out of a job if he is specifically precluded from operating when any other course of action is open to the complainant, whether through legal action, a tribunal, an appeals procedure or whatever. Over time, as the health authorities obey the instructions set out in clause 1 and introduce a complaints procedure and tell people about it, the ombudsman may be unable to take up cases because the Secretary of State and the health authorities have pre-empted him.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's constituency experience has been similar to my own. Aggrieved constituents have sought my assistance to put them in touch with the ombudsman but in practice he has been able to do very little for them. As often as not, the resolution of their worries has been outside his competence. That is why the Bill and the amendments are so important.

Mrs. Currie: Some of the difficulties of dealing with complaints and of getting people to complain correctly and adequately to the right person at the right time were dealt with in the debate in another place. My hon. Friend raises a most important point. Part of the problem is a matter of attitudes. It is surely possible to advise people of the complaints procedure before they go to hospital for planned surgery or treatment. They should receive a leaflet in advance including advice on what to do if they are unhappy or have questions to ask. That advice should cover not just the patient, but his family, his general practitioner, his other medical advisers, and so on. If the patient has that information before he goes to the hospital he is likely to ask the appropriate questions at the right time and the people treating him are more likely to regard him as a human being whose fears and anxieties have to be allayed, not ignored. We must make that point very firmly today.
As for the powers of the ombudsman, it is worth reflecting that more than 5 million outpatients and, I believe, more than 600,000 inpatients are treated every year. Under the guidance of the Ministers concerned, record numbers of patients are being treated, but there are only about 9,000 written complaints per year which have to be investigated, and the ombudsman deals with only 120.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady said that she did not intend to talk about the ombudsman's duties. She must deal with the amendments.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the ombudsman is prevented from fulfilling the purpose for which he exists and from meeting the needs of complainants, the question whether the situation is best dealt with by the Minister issuing instructions to regional health authorities or directly to district health authorities would seem to be germane to the debate. To that extent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an interesting question, but it is not one for me. It is for the Chair to decide whether a matter is in or out of order.

Mrs. Currie: With regard to amendment No. 4, the law is a little hazy. It is not clear whether the ombudsman would be ruled out of court by the Bill as it stands, but we do not intend to find out the hard way. The clause is especially defective in relation to Scotland. In this context, we are pleased to note and to support their Lordships' amendments, which will ensure that the ombudsman's work in Scotland will continue on exactly the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom and that the benefits to which my hon. Friends have referred will be assured.
In my view, the Lords amendments greatly improve the Bill's effectiveness and are to be welcomed. Under the existing legislation it was possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury to visit three different hospitals without being given any information about complaints procedures and to be a patient for months on end without realising that the Secretary of State had written to all health authorities years earlier advising them to set up a complaints procedure and to tell everyone about it. Indeed, other patients turned to him as a Member of Parliament to take up complaints on their behalf. In other words, the powers that be were able totally to ignore the myriad circulars sent out and the advice of the Secretary of State to the effect that they should have a complaints procedure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was surprised to read all those circulars and no doubt that was the basis of his determination to make the procedures statutory and mandatory so that no hospital could make the excuse that it did not have time and had not bothered to establish the necessary procedures.
This little Bill, with these important amendments, will be a step forward in patient care. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has asked me to thank all the staff at the DHSS for their assistance at all stages of the Bill. I also thank them for their very effective briefing to me in recent days. My hon. Friend has also asked me to thank all hon. Members who have assisted in the passage of the Bill in both this and the other House, especially the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who must be singled out for special praise as he has taken a close personal interest in the Bill.
Finally, I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury for bringing forward the Bill. We congratulate him on his success in the ballot and we recognise the courage and dignity with which he presented his case and with which he continues to combat his illness. We wish him good health and we hope that he will never have occasion to set in train the procedures that he has established in the Bill.

Mr. Marlow: The Bill is very welcome, but it is important that it should be coherent and that the amendments should be properly considered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has said, it is important to include Scotland and Wales—and potentially Northern Ireland as well—so that the whole United Kingdom can benefit from this boon.
At present, the Minister has power to issue instructions but is not required to do so. In the light of my experience of real constituency problems in this area, I am anxious that the Minister should give the instructions to the right people. The House is frequently concerned with human rights issues, but what happens in the Health Service is not just a question of human rights — sometimes it is a matter of life or death. Those who survive the sad death


of a loved one are rightly deeply concerned about the circumstances. Sometimes, they fear that something which should have been done was not done or that the concerns of the bereaved have not been properly considered. A constituent whose mother died in a hospital outside the area sought an investigation into the circumstances in the belief that the right treatment had not been given. That may well have been so. The doctors do a tremendous job, but to err is human and mistakes happen. We must consider how complaints of that kind are best investigated in the light of the real burdens of sadness and distress that many of our constituents face.
Where do we go from here? Do we, as the Bill suggests, require the Minister to send to every one of the 192 district health authorities in England an elegantly phrased edict — knowing my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, it will be both elegant and eloquent —as to how they should proceed?
11 am
In Northampton, but not in my constituency, a young girl was recently misdiagnosed and, sadly, died of appendicitis. There was a great deal of publicity and anxiety about the case, and people feel that questions have not been answered.
Is my hon. Friend the Minister required, in regard to the complaints procedure, to pass his instructions to district health authorities or to regional health authorities? If he gives instructions to DHAs, that means that he is responsible for ensuring that they are carried out. If he gives his instructions to RHAs, he has a proper responsibility to ensure that they are carrying out his instructions, but there are 14 of them. Some of us have been in the Army, industry and management and have heard about something called the span of control. The ideal span or number under a chief is eight. I am aware that my hon. Friend is beyond the realms of normal human beings. He is a gifted and gracious man and I am sure that he could cope more than adequately with a span of control of 14. Nevertheless, I wonder whether, in his heart of hearts—for, despite his great skills, my hon. Friend is a modest man — he feels that he could administer and supervise 192 DHAs.

Mr. John Patten: I am naturally loth to intervene in this agreeable flood of compliments, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that my intervention should cut him off from continuing in that vein. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there are great difficulties in Health Ministers involving themselves in detailed management, including management of complaints procedures, in 192 DHAs? Does he further agree that it is therefore important that we should issue general instructions to all health authorities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) said, in so doing trying not to intervene unnecessarily beyond the span of control in the running of those 192 DHAs, or that we should approach the task through our regular contacts with the 14 RHAs?

Mr. Marlow: I am beginning to be reassured. Perhaps I might bore the House with my experiences in uniform. When I was in the Army, we had things called Defence Council instructions and Army Council instructions, which were sent throughout the service to every unit, however small, The War Office, as it then was, and the chiefs of staff were not directly responsible for or in control of each unit. I should be worried if I thought that my hon. Friend had to manage the 192 DHAs directly.
It is instinctive for a professional body to look after its own. Disasters are bound to occur in the Health Service, and when they do there is a closing of ranks. There is little controversy about that. If prime responsibility for dealing with the complaints procedure rests within the DHA, responsibility will lie precisely where the ranks will close. It could be advantageous for responsibility to be vested in the higher tier. With responsibility in the lower tier, internal politics and knowledge of individuals—

Mr. John Patten: I am a bit worried about what my hon. Friend is saying. Is he entirely ignoring the introduction of the new management structure, the appointment of the general manager, Mr. Victor Poge, general managers for RHAs and for DHAs and the appointment of managers at units of management level? Does my hon. Friend agree that that provides a line of management which will enable complaints procedures to be dealt with managerially and outwith any closing of ranks, which my hon. Friend suspects might happen?

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend says that I suspect it might happen. I am not suspecting anything in a nasty way; I am reflecting on human nature and how things happen in organisations and institutions. The new management structure is a tremendous step forward. Like him, I believe that it will be massively helpful for the Health Service as, at last, there will be somebody at each level with whom the buck will stop.
We have a police complaints procedure, and one of the criticisms of it is that it is in-house. The police are involved with people's civil liberties. The Health Service—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me to which amendment he is addressing himself? I see no reference to these details in the amendments.

Mr. Marlow: The thrust of the amendments is the inclusion of all health authorities as opposed to just regional health authorities. I am seeking justification for my hon. Friend sending his instructions to each hearth authority rather than, as the Bill originally provided, to RHAs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to that argument. I have not heard it deployed yet.

Mr. Marlow: There is anxiety that the police complaints procedure is in-house. I am saying that we should be more careful in the Health Service because we are dealing with matters of life and death. As we are having a complaints procedure, we must ensure that it operates at the proper level. I feel instinctively that the main responsibility could quite properly lie with the RHA, although I accept that, as with Army Council instructions and Defence Council instructions, it is right for my hon. Friend to send his eloquent, elegant and well-written instructions to every health authority in the realm.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have a good reply to that question. What is the best method for ensuring that my hon. Friend's instructions are carried through?

Mr. John Patten: Ultimate responsibility lies with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, for Wales and for Scotland. Responsibility for the complaints procedure therefore devolves downwards through the health authority network and management structure in the three different countries. I do not see that


my hon. Friend has a point to make, because the line of responsibility goes up to the three Secretaries of State involved.

Mr. Marlow: I respect my hon. Friend's point, and I am sure that later he will provide further details that will satisfy even my mind.
In the NHS my hon. Friend has a management structure, just as ICI, BP, Shell, and Guest, Keen and Nettlefold have a management structure. If, as a supplier or receiver of goods, one had a commercial complaint against any of those firms and wrote to the chairman or managing director, there would be a tendency within the firm concerned to close ranks. That is why we have consumer protection legislation. Splendid though the general managers in the Health Service are, if complaints are made relating to their area, are they the best people to operate the complaints procedure, or would it be better done at a higher level? That is the question that I leave with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: In case the crowded Benches in the House this morning should give the public at large the wrong impression, I should like to make a brief contribution in support of the Bill in general and the amendments in particular.
In the 17-line explanation of the purpose of the Bill there are 19 words that we are considering this morning to which the amendments are specifically addressed. Those words are:
to establish and publicise, as respects each of the hospitals they are responsible for managing, a procedure for dealing with complaints made by, or on behalf of, patients at such hospitals.
Given that that is the kernel of the Bill, I do not think that anyone could reasonably suggest that the amendments do anything but emphasise and underscore those objectives. It is right and proper that we should have one law in the United Kingdom to deal with a hospital complaints procedure. Many of us — even after two years in this House—still cannot come to terms with the fact that we do everything three times — first for England and Wales, then for Scotland and then for Northern Ireland. The public must also be puzzled that we have to multiply our legislation in that way. If the Bill simplifies the procedure, I am sure that that is all for the good.
I do not think that the analogy of generals bypassing their brigadiers and talking to their colonels, in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is fair. Indeed, if that is how they operate, I can understand why the management structure of the services was in such a mess in the first world war. I think that the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make was that perhaps our worthy colleagues in the DHSS should talk only to the regions and not to the districts.
There are only 14 regional health authorities. My authority is Trent. They are vast organisations. The public might think it more appropriate that the Minister should write direct to the district councils, which are nearer to the grass roots and much more in contact with local people and local Members of Parliament. The Trent region stretches from Sheffield in the north to Leicester, or even further south. Those vast regional authorities employ thousands of staff.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend is pressing me, as I have been pressed hard by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), on the question of devolved responsibility. Will my hon. Friend accept from me that it is our intention, should the Bill become law, that while all health authorities will be given identical instructions, we regard our relationship as being initially with regional health authorities on the general conduct of business, of which the complaints procedure is but one part, and thence onwards to the district authorities, as laid down by law?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I accept my hon. Friend's point without reservation. I am sure that the Bill will be accepted in its present form. I welcome and support it.

Mr. Clive Soley: In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I confirm that the Opposition welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction.
Congratulations are due to the promoter, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is not very well and cannot be here today, and to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). We must not only congratulate the hon. Lady but you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance during a speech lasting 40 minutes in which Scotland was referred to only half a dozen times, when every amendment relates to Scotland. I am not sure who deserves most congratulations—you for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the hon. Lady for getting away with it.
The hon. Lady also deserves congratulations for striking fear into the heart of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). That is not an easy thing to do. Perhaps it is a forerunner of what may happen when we deal later with the Sexual Offences Bill.
The Hospital Complaints Procedure Bill is a step in the right direction and we commend its extension to Scotland. We do not need to have separate legislation for each part of the United Kingdom; that is neither necessary nor desirable. The fundamental argument is that there is a need for a proper complaints procedure in the NHS, and that it should extend to all parts of the United Kingdom.
It is regrettable that there is still no proper democratic system for running the NHS, and that matter needs to be examined carefully. From time to time I receive complaints which can be taken up with the area health authority or the regional health authority and I do not always receive satisfaction, despite the good intentions of those involved. In many cases there is no proper way in which to follow up complaints. I know that from time to time the Minister receives letters of complaint about the procedure and he must appreciate that it is not effective.
I should like to see the involvement of local councillors who are directly elected. I commend the efforts of Councillor Hugh Thompson in my own area. He has started the first advice surgeries for people with complaints about treatment in the NHS. They are held on a regular basis so that people have someone to whom they can air their grievances.
I shall be writing to the Minister in due course on another matter which does not fall under the legislation before the House. There are plans in Hammersmith, which is a special health authority area, to close seven wards for the month of August. I have already received several


complaints from people who will not be able to enter hospital and will suffer extra pain because of the month's delay. The reason for closing the wards is simply to save £100,000. That is the nature of the problem, yet a few moments ago the Minister intervened to say how much the Government were spending on the NHS. The public recognise that there is a real undermining of the NHS taking place and a deterioration in the services provided.
The Bill is a small but important step towards a proper complaints procedure, and will put firmly on the statute book a recognition of the principle that some form of national complaints procedure is required. But sooner or later the House will have to examine in more detail the administration and control of the NHS on behalf of the people who make use of the services. We should also consider whether it should be separate from local government.

Mr. John Patten: Our interesting short debate has been notable for the fact that the affairs of Scotland and Wales have been debated without many hon. Members from those countries being present to consider the amendments.
I join the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I described him during Tuesday's debate on the NHS as our valiant hon. Friend —and valiant he is. I know that he wished to be here today, but is unable to be present because he is having hospital treatment. He certainly intends no discourtesy to the House by his absence. He has an adequate and elegant substitute in my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
The amendments have been fully examined. Most involve the extension of the Bill to other parts of the United Kingdom, though there are also important issues involving the Health Service Commissioners.
Clause 1 lays a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his existing power to give directions to health authorities requiring the establishment and publicising of specified procedures for dealing with complaints in all NHS hospitals. Lords amendment No. 1 extends the list of authorities to which such directions will have to be given to district health authorities in England and Wales, health boards in Scotland and special health authorities wherever they are located. That provision greatly exercised the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South went into the amendments in detail and I complimented her on her speech, which I followed with great care. We are sometimes a little too free with our compliments in the House, just as we are sometimes a little too free with our abuse of each other. When I read what I had said about the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) at the end of Tuesday's NHS debate, I was a little ashamed of myself. I referred to his possible future as a Front-Bench spokesman and used the words of a well-known first world war song to express my regrets that the hon. Gentleman might not be on the Opposition Front Bench in the future. Perhaps I went a little far and, therefore, perhaps I have been a little restrained in my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South.
As drafted, the Bill covered only regional health authorities and therefore applied only to England. There are no regional health authorities in Scotland or Wales and it is now intended that the Bill should apply in both those

countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) complained about our legislative diversity, but the countries that make up the United Kingdom express that diversity in their organisation of the NHS and in other ways, and we have to make appropriate legislative provision for them. However, I understand why my hon. Friend feels that the process takes up much of our time.
Regional health authorities in England are not directly responsible for the management of hospitals. Lords amendment No. 1 will ensure that the directions to be given are addressed to all authorities that have hospital management responsibilities. I made that point two or three times during interventions in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I am grateful to him for having given way because we had a useful debate about the responsibilities of the various health authorities.
Lords amendment No. 1 extends the Bill to Wales and Scotland, but not to Northern Ireland. In an enjoyable and all too brief speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South told us his views on legislative diversity and said that he always liked to see one law for the United Kingdom. For two and a half years I was Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I was often here at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning debating Northern Ireland issues. I know that if the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) were here today, he would give a "Hear, hear" to the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
The amendments are technical, but they are important to Wales and Scotland. They are designed to ensure that the Bill can have its intended effect, and the Government support them wholeheartedly. For my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be able to make directions which will bite on the relevant authorities, the Bill must specify the authorities correctly. As originally drafted, it did not do so.
Clause 1 refers only to regional health authorities. As has been pointed out time and again in the debate, those authorities exist only in England. There is no regional tier of management alone in Scotland and Wales. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned in his powerful speech, regional health authorities in England do not directly run hospitals. That is the job of district health authorities and of special health authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South referred at length, though I should have liked her to develop her comments on special health authorities, because they are neglected bodies. I fear that all too often the public do not appreciate the relationship between district, special and regional health authorities, particularly in London.
In Wales, district health authorities are the relevant authorities, while in Scotland the health boards run hospitals. The amendment would include those authorities in the Bill. In addition, to the extent that regional authorities are responsible for elements of the management of hospitals, the Bill will bite on them. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North referred to that. I see that he has moved to the Opposition Front Bench; I hope that that is only a temporary aberration.
The Bill was originally intended to apply only to England and Wales, but the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has had to give his assent. have agreed that it should apply north of


the border as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has said that he wishes the Bill to be extended as widely as possible and the Government support that objective. There has been no dissenting voice from England, Scotland or Wales during the debate.
Lords amendment No. 2, which is also a technical amendment, will include a necessary reference to the legislation governing health boards in Scotland. It will permit equivalent Scottish legislation to be applied in the issuing of directions to health boards north of the border. I commend the amendment.
11.30 am
It is important briefly to consider amendment No. 3, which provides for references to health boards in Scotland to be included in the Bill. It is consequent upon the previous two amendments and ensures that the Scottish health boards are referred to in the Bill where necessary. The Government support the amendment. The issue was of great concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, who, I am relieved to see, is now crossing the Floor, back to his rightful place below the Gangway on the Conservative side of the Chamber. I was worried to see him on the Labour Front Bench consulting the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
Amendment No. 4 is interesting and ensures that the Health Service Commissioners are not precluded from carrying out investigations, under part V of the National Health Service Act 1977, into cases that have been investigated under any procedures laid down in the directions to be made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the duty conferred on him by the measure. Those directions should not in any way interfere with the work or the jurisdiction of the Health Service Commissioners. The amendment makes equivalent provision for Scotland, which the Government wholehear-tedly support.
The offices of the Health Service Commissioners, which will be affected by the amendment, provide an important avenue for an independent review of complaints. Certain criteria must be met before the Commissioners can investigate, but they are not onerous and are intended to ensure that justice is done to both the complainant and those complained against. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South made that point, I am sure that the House regrets that she did not speak at greater length on it. The Bill is not intended to restrict the Commissioners' powers, and it is important that that is widely recognised.
A strict interpretation of the legislation governing the Commissioners' activities may well have caused

problems. Therefore, section 116 of the National Health Service Act 1977 prevents any investigation of an action where the complainant has a right of appeal, reference or review by a tribunal constituted under any enactment. If the section were not specifically exempted, it might bite on the procedures to be laid down as a result of the Bill. That is not the intention of the Bill and, therefore, clear provision is made to allow the Commissioners to investigate complaints and to exempt the Commissioners' investigations both north and south of the Border.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are technical amendments to ensure that the interpretations of the provisions applying to Scotland are included. Just as there are different legislative provisions north and south of the Border, so Scotland and England are at times divided by legal language. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) were present, he would say, "Hear, hear," to that, and stress that it was desirable. The amendments ensure that the Bill will be understood on both sides of the Border, and include necessary references to Scottish law. The Government support them.
Amendment No. 7 refers to clause 2(3) and deals with the extent of the Bill. It deletes references in the Bill which exclude Scotland. The amendments that we have so far discussed render redundant the exemption of Scotland from the Bill, and this amendment brings Scotland fully within the Bill's scope.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the long title, which it is important to get right. At present it refers only to regional health authorities, and the amendment provides for the inclusion of references to district and special health authorities in England and Wales, and health boards in Scotland. As drafted, the long title reflects the previously limited scope of the Bill, but thanks to the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South we have extended that scope. The amendment ensures that the long title accurately reflects the amended Bill's contents, and parallels the wording that has been agreed for clause 1(1) in its references to health authorities in England and Wales and health boards in Scotland. We support the amendment.
I hope that the House will approve the amendment and that the Bill will pass into law. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, ably and strongly supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South, has advanced the rights of patients to have complaints against hospitals thoroughly investigated within and by the NHS. The Government wholeheartedly welcome the spirit in which the Bill was introduced in February, and hope that the measure will eventually pass into law.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Access to Information) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

ACCESS TO MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTS OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES, COMMITTEES AND SUB-COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 14, leave out "other than the Data Protection Act 1984".

Mr. Robin Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 3, 7, and 9.

Mr. Squire: This is the final stage of a Bill which I am entitled to describe as major. It is major in size, in that it was six pages on Second Reading and is now 36 pages. That is a tribute in itself to the clarifying powers of both Chambers. It is major in effect because it will affect every local authority in England, Wales and Scotland. I pay my respects to and thank my noble Friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour, who gave sterling assistance in another place and enabled the Bill to return to this House. That was appreciated by both me and the Bill's supporters outside the House. I know that she would wish to join me in thanking both the umbrella freedom of information campaign and the community rights project, which have given us a great deal of assistance. Indeed, the Government's advisers have also been of enormous assistance in getting the wording into its correct and final form.
The effect of amendments Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 9 is that local authorities must not release information where disclosure is forbidden by other enactments. That principle, perhaps predictably, was already built into the Bill, but with one significant exception: the Bill overrode the Data Protection Act 1984. That Act mandatorily protects personal information which would enable an individual to be identified and which is held on computer or derived from computer data. While overriding the Act, the Bill sought in the schedule to give local authorities discretion to withhold personal information whether held on computer or by more traditional methods. Thus, all personal information held by local authorities was afforded similar discretionary protection.
However, in the light of discussions with appropriate Departments and with representatives of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, we now all believe that the balance of advantage lies in removing the exception for three main reasons. Before I give them, I should pay tribute to the co-operation that I have received from representatives of the local authority associations, who have laboured long and hard to ensure that the Bill is workable by the local authorities.
The first reason is that the Data Protection Act responds to public anxiety in that it seeks to protect, as an intentional act of public policy, personal information held on computer or derived from data. It deliberately stops short of attempting to extend protection to personal

information held in more traditional forms. Therefore, it would be difficult to defend according privacy mandatorily to all personal information held on a computer, or derived from computer data, except information in the hands of local authorities, which would have the aforementioned discretion.
Secondly, the law would be clearer and more readily comprehensible by local authorities and the general public if the prohibition in the Data Protection Act were maintained for local authorities.
Thirdly, in practice, a local authority which wishes to exercise discretion over the disclosure of personal information held on computer or derived from data would still be able to do so. It could register, for specified information, a data recipient as narrow or as wide as it wished, extending in the latter case to the general public.
Those reasons appear to outweigh the case for the exception that was included in the Bill. The local authority associations made it clear that they would prefer the exemption to be removed. Amendments deleting references in the Bill to the Data Protection Act were accordingly tabled and accepted on Report in the other place.

Mr. Clive Soley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on his introduction of the Bill. It has been supported by the Opposition and by the freedom of information campaign, to which all hon. Members owe a debt. Indeed, the local authorities have supported it. It is a good step forward, and we welcome it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On behalf of the Liberal party, I wish to pay a similar compliment to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). He picked up the Bill that others had tried to introduce in the two previous Sessions of Parliament. The trio of hon. Members consisted of one from each major party, which shows the all-party nature of the Bill. As last year's sponsor, I am happy that someone else did the work this year, and even happier that the Bill is likely to become law. It is a good Bill and the hon. Gentleman deserves congratulations on the effort that he has put into it. I hope that he will pass on our congratulations to all those who have helped him to get the Bill on to the statute book.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am happy to join those hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on a good Bill, which has been made better by the consideration given to it here and in another place. I am grateful for the tribute that he paid to my officials. I add my thanks to them, because it is much easier to reduce the broad principles of legislation than to carry out the detailed and hard slog of drafting a Bill and of searching for the many other Acts which must be brought into line with it. I know that Mr. Douglas McCreadie and his colleagues, with whom my hon. Friend has worked closely, will be grateful for his kind words.
The Government welcome the Bill and hope that it reaches the statute book without a last-minute hitch. It demonstrates the Government's willingness to listen to and develop sensible proposals for greater freedom of information. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the sterling work that he has done.
Of course, we all know how the careers of those who begin their parliamentary careers by introducing legislation on this subject develop. I wish my hon. Friend the success that he deserves as a result of this work.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 9, leave out lines 5 to 15 and insert—

"

(a) specifying those powers of the council which, for the time being, are excercisable from time to time by officers of the council in pursuance of arrangements made under this Act or any other enactment for their discharge by those officers; and
(b) stating the title of the officer by whom each of the powers so specified is for the time being so excercisable;

but this subsection does not require a power to be specified in the list if the arrangements for its discharge by the officer are made for a specified period not exceeding six months.

Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 8.

Mr. Squire: The amendments are simply drafting changes. Clauses 1 and 2 insert respectively into the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 new sections 100G(2) and 50G(2).They require that a register be maintained of powers exercisable on a contingency basis by officers on behalf of the council. Such amendments bring the provision into line with the wording of the 1972 and 1973 Acts, which refer not to delegation but to arrangements for the discharge of functions.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No 4, in page 12, line 10, at end insert—
(f) a combined fire authority".

Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 15.

Mr. Squire: Amendment No. 4 extends the Bill to cover combined fire authorities, which may be constituted in England and Wales as bodies corporate under sections 5 and 6 of the Fire Services Act 1947. No such authorities exist at present, but they could be formed in the future to rover two or more counties. It seems sensible for the Bill to provide for this contingency and thus cover all fire authorities, existing and potential. It is consistent with the Bill's application to police authorities, which are all covered, including combined police authorities as bodies corporate under the Police Act 1964.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 15 are consequential. Amendment No. 6 corrects a slight error in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. It removes the words "and the", which were inadvertently left hanging in the air in section 100G(1)(a), as applied by section 100J(4)(b). This provision requires the maintenance of a register of members of joint boards or joint committees.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1

EXEMPT INFORMATION

Lords amendment: No. 10 in page 27, line 16, leave out paragraph 13 and insert—
13. Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes—

(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person: or
(b) to make an order or direction under any enactment."

Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 14.

Mr. Squire: These are important amendments. Amendment No. 10 substitutes a new paragraph 13 in respect of part 1 of schedule 12A. Amendment No. 12 substitutes an identical new paragraph in respect of the equivalent Scottish provision, which is paragraph 13 of part I of schedule 7A. In each case, the paragraph is qualified by paragraph 6 of part II of the appropriate schedule.
As amended, paragraph 13 of schedules 12A and 7A classes as exempt information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes either to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or to make an order or direction under an enactment.
The paragraph is subject to the new qualification in paragraph 6 of part II of schedules 12A and 7A. The purpose of paragraph 13 is to enable a local authority to consider the case for a notice, order or direction and reach a decision on the matter without the person who would be affected by it becoming aware of it in advance, in a case where that person might, as a result, be able to take steps to defeat the authority's purpose. The obvious example is of demolishing a building which was to be the subject of a building preservation notice. Hon. Members will accept that it would be wrong to allow a person who may be thus affected to frustrate the intentions of the authority, assuming that it took such a decision in an ordinary committee.
The amendment broadens paragraph 13 to include circumstances where the authority proposes to make an order or direction under any enactment. This is because the principle behind paragraph 13 can apply to the making of an order or direction as to the serving of a notice. Inclusion of the words
under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person
in (a) has narrowed the term "notice". It is unnecessary to include within the provision notices that merely inform the recipient of some matter as distinct from requiring him to do, or not to do, something. For example, a notice served on an owner or occupier saying that a compulsory purchase order had been made would not be covered, because there would be no particular advantage in obtaining that information if one could do nothing with it in advance of the decision.
Paragraph 13 does not confer new powers on the local authority to impose burdens or restrictions on citizens. It is merely designed to prevent existing powers being rendered potentially ineffective through premature disclosure as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 14 substitute a new qualification in respect of paragraph 13 of part I of the schedule. The qualification provides that information falling within paragraph 13 of part I is exempt information if and so long as disclosure to the public might afford an opportunity to a person affected by the notice, order or direction to defeat the purposes, or one of the purposes, for which the notice, order or direction is to be given or made. The new qualification is in line with the principle behind new paragraph 13 of part I. It means that the local authority has discretion to close a meeting under paragraph 13 of part I only where premature disclosure of information to the public might afford an opportunity to the person affected to defeat the purpose of the notice, order or direction. The information will not be exempt once the notice, order or direction has been served or made.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 31, line 29, leave out
or the subject matter of the collective agreement

Mr. Squire: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 17.

Mr. Squire: These are simply tidying-up amendments. Amendment No. 13 corrects a slight mistake in the Bill as it left the House of Commons. The words
or the subject matter of the collective agreement
were, as the result of an amendment, left stranded at the end of a paragraph that no longer deals with labour relations matters. The amendment merely removes them. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are of a similar nature.

Question put and agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences Bill

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That further consideration of the Lords amendments be now adjourned.
I do so because this Bill, more than most private Members' Bills, embodies matters of great seriousness. It is a far more deep and detailed measure than most of the private Members' Bills with which we deal.
I raise this point of order because of the time that has been available. When the Bill was last in this House, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department properly said that he would arrange for a debate on importing into the Bill the concept of "persistently", such that it would not be an offence if something happened casually. Only if somebody were persistently pursuing a course of action contrary to the Bill would that be an offence. That debate was duly held in the other place and in Committee there, and it was decided that the Bill would be better with the concept of "persistently". That was the issue of principle debated and decided in the other place.
As a result, the rest of the Bill became somewhat incoherent. I do not mean any abuse by that, but the rest of the Bill did not run properly and therefore other amendments were needed. The other place tabled amendments on Third Reading. Its intention was to put the Bill in order, but at the same time another concept was introduced into the Bill, and that was "persistently" or by causing "annoyance" or "nuisance".
These new concepts in the Bill have not been debated in this place. This is a part of the law under which, if the wrong person is picked up, charged and given publicity, it will have the severest effects on his personal relationships, social life, job and reputation. Therefore, we should take the Bill seriously.
The other place debated the amendment last night and introduced the two new elements into the Bill. It concluded its debate at 33 minutes past 8 last night. This is a deep and important issue. It is a matter that touches closely on the civil liberties of many of our citizens. The Bill gives additional powers to the police. I am not saying that that is wrong, but, before the House agrees to this measure, it should have proper notice.
Many right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about this issue. Quite rightly, they are concerned to get the Bill on the statute book, but they are concerned also that the Bill does not put their constituents at risk. We may have the right amendments now, but, with the best will in the world, the other place deciding at 8.33 last night what to put in the Bill leaves no time for right hon. and hon. Members, first, to appraise themselves of what is happening, secondly to discuss it with their constituents, thirdly to take advice about what is happening and fourthly, to prepare any argument that they might wish to bring before the House.
I plead with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, in the constitutional interests of the House and in the interest of how we discuss legislation, whatever the rules of order may say, we should not proceed with the Bill until hon. Members are fully appraised of what is happening.
This is the last day for private Members' Bills. However, the Government have participated on this Bill.
I am sure that, as they have taken an interest, time could be made available for a debate to be held later on the subject so that the sensitive issues can be properly discussed. I plead with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and put that point to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's submission, but I cannot accept the motion. We must get on with the business.
persistently or, subject to section
5(5A) below, in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.
Amendments to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 1, leave out from 'persistently' to end of line 4.
(f), in line 4, after 'or', insert 'serious'.
Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 5.

Miss Fookes: As we are debating several amendments together, it may be for the convenience of the House if I read out the new form of the clause, assuming that all these Lords amendments are incorporated into it. It will read as follows:
A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution —
(a) from a motor vehicle while it is in a street or public place;
Or
(b) in a street or public place while in the immediate vicinity of a motor vehicle that he has just got out of or off, persistently or, subject to section 5(5A) below, in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.
Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has just said, all these points about nuisance and annoyance were debated extensively in Committee here. My hon. Friend was not a member of that Committee, nor, so far as I know, did he seek to be a member of it. It is not correct, therefore, for him to say that this has in some way been sprung on the House of Commons in an injudicious or hasty fashion.

12 noon.

Mr. Marlow: I did not say that anything had been done hastily or injudiciously. Nor did I say anything which I thought would put the Bill in jeopardy. I do not mean to be critical or aggressive towards anybody today. My hon. Friend will realise that not every hon. Member is on every Committee. Hon. Members may have other activities to attend, or they may be on other Committees. It is not possible for all hon. Members to be on all Committees. Nor should it be possible for that to be the case.
I do not think my hon. Friend is saying that, because an hon. Member is not on a Committee—given that we all have constituency interests and are concerned for the welfare and civil rights of all our citizens—he should not take an interest in a matter. If, therefore, my hon. Friend was making an inference in what she said, I hope that she will withdraw it.

Clause 1

SOLICITING OF WOMEN FROM MOTOR VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROSTITUTION

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "(1)" to end of line 7 and insert
A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution—

Miss Janet Fookes: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 11, at end insert
Will she, in explaining this group of amendments, say whether amendment No. 2 applies to subsection (1)(a) and (b) or only to (b)?

Miss Fookes: I was alluding only to what I believe are established facts. I meant no other inference.
Before dealing with points that hon. Members may wish to raise, I will outline the purpose of the Lords amendments, which I accept, and then deal with any queries arising out of them. Although the Lords amendments substantially change the original clause about kerb crawling, they still contain two points which were important to me from the outset.
First, there is a specific offence applying to those who use motor vehicles, as widely defined, for the soliciting of women for the purpose of prostitution. This is such a nuisance in certain areas of some big cities that it is important that that point should be at the heart of the Bill in clause 1.
Secondly, the principle—again, a principle to which I attach great importance—is maintained that, where a woman has a single approach made to her by a kerb crawler and is thereby upset and annoyed, she has redress under the clause.
The other place, however, attached two safeguards, which are alternative safeguards, and I hope that they will allay the misgivings that were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House when the clause was presented in its original form.
The first is that one will have to show that the man was soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, which, in my view, is a severe test in any case. In addition, the word "persistently" is included—either one woman or more than one woman—and that deals effectively with the point made by those who felt that an innocent man—perhaps asking the way, which seems to be the classic example that we are given—might be accused, tried and perhaps convicted unjustly. I appreciate why, in forming a new criminal clause, hon. Members were seeking to safeguard the innocent. The element of persistence does so.
The second alternative test or safeguard reads:
in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman … or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.


Again, that deals effectively with the bitter grievances of residents who find that their ordinary lives are disrupted by kerb crawling by numbers of different men coming into the area. I hope that it will give much needed relief to areas such as Bedford hill, parts of Tooting, Southampton, parts of my constituency of Plymouth, Drake and other areas of the country. They have looked for redress for long enough. I hope that they will find it in the way in which the clause is now formulated.
Also of interest to the House—this also applies to the question of additional safeguards—is the addition that has been made in the other place about the Crown prosecution service. When we discussed the measure before it went to the other place, I pointed out that the independent prosecution service would afford an additional safeguard against over-zealous police prosecuting a man who might be innocent. I did not think that that was a great risk, but I accept that others thought otherwise.
The result of that matter being dealt with as part of this group of amendments is that the new service, which will be independent of the police, will have to be in operation before that part of clause 1 can be effective. I understand that it might come into operation at different places at different times, but the Minister will be able to give more authoritative information about that than I, a Back-Bencher, can do. This will provide a final and effective test and safeguard against any wrongful accusations or trials in court.
I will not delay the House by dealing with one amendment which is consequential on another.
Two amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North have been included in this group. His amendments would toughen up the clause to such an extent that it would be almost impossible to bring any prosecution with any chance of success. To that extent they are unacceptable, but I will explain in more detail why that is the case.
My hon. Friend's first amendment suggests that in place of "nuisance" the term "serious nuisance" should be in the Bill. I gather that over the years there has been a clear understanding in the courts of what "nuisance" means and that it is not to be taken lightly. To import the additional adjective "serious" would, in my view, restrict the operation of the clause to such an extent as to make it unworkable. For that reason, I could not accept it, although I understand the reason for my hon. Friend wishing to introduce it.
I have explained why the annoyance or nuisance test is useful and why it meets the wishes of residents and women in particular areas who are subjct to the nuisance. To remove it would weaken the Bill unacceptably. Therefore, I must advise the House not to accept the two amendments standing in my hon. Friend's name.
The new package, to which their Lordships gave considerable time and effort, represents a reasonable compromise between those, like myself, who were anxious to see that an effective clause was in place to deal with the nuisance of kerb crawling and the objections of those who felt that innocent men might inadvertently be caught up in a new criminal offence.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the position. She will recall that I asked her whether amendment No. 2 covered both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).

Miss Fookes: The plain answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes, it does.
I think that I have covered adequately the various points of importance in their Lordships' amendments. I warmly commend them to the House.

Mr. Marlow: First of all, can I draw attention to the remarks of Lord Wigoder in another place? The Bill has gone through the other place, and we are all desperately trying to rewrite the whole of it. The point that I am making is that we have received from their Lordships—I make no complaint about this—a Bill that has been substantially changed. What we are here to debate is whether the changes are the right changes and whether or not they produce the right Bill.
Can I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) on bringing this measure to the House and, despite alarms, scares and ups and downs, getting it to this stage? I think that we all agree that in some parts of the country there is a very severe nuisance caused and areas of considerable blight as a result of the habit of kerb crawling that has grown up. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to stress this by referring to some remarks made in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). My hon. Friend drew attention to what it is like to live in a red light district. She went on to say that she was pleased to say that she had never had the misfortune to do so herself. However, it appears that she has received many complaints from constituents. She said:
When kerb crawlers have created a red light district it is as if a blight were over the whole area. I cite the example of a woman who was waiting outside her daughter's school to bring her home. She was accosted by two prostitutes who told her, in the foulest language imaginable, to get off their patch … That happens constantly in that sort of area. A young girl was called over to a car by a man who was kerb crawling. The driver exposed himself, which frightened the child and she ran away." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 27 February 1985, c. 72.]
These are the sort of things that happen in these areas. I have no doubt that in such areas other forms of crime thrive as well. If my hon. Friend's Bill will rid our country of this blight, I think that we should all be grateful to her.
There are areas where prostitution takes place. There is an element in Northampton but not so much in the area of the town that I represent. I do not think that it has reached the level that was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston in Committee. I think that in those circumstances — the police will probably agree — the police have sufficient and adequate powers to deal with the problem. When the problem has reached the proportion that makes it a nuisance, under the existing law, they have managed to deal with that nuisance. However, there are other areas and those other areas do need, perhaps, the protection of the law; they do not need the protection of morals. I do not think that our constituents are asking us here to take a moral view. They are asking us to prevent abuse and nuisance. They are asking us to do it in such a way that we are not in danger of introducing injustices.
I know that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, is quite rightly concerned about police powers. I know that he will


be looking at the Bill as it is likely to be amended and as it has been amended by their Lordships to ensure that any additional powers that are given to the police are necessary powers.
12.15 pm
This is an ambitious area for a Private Member's Bill. It is not an area that is completely devoid of controversy. Where we have an area that is not devoid of controversy, we must be very careful, obviously, how we proceed, particularly when a Private Member's measure is involved.
One thing that has obviously concerned me and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) is the possibility of injustice taking place. In this particular area, it is not just a matter of somebody going to court and being found guilty when they are innocent. Of course, that is bad enough but that is not the injustice that we are basically concerned with. In this particularly sensitive area one is concerned about the possibility that an innocent man may be picked up, may be charged, may be brought to court and then found to be innocent. The fine that might have been involved would be as nothing compared with the effect of that charge, innocent though he be, on his reputation. It could have a catastrophic effect on a man's marriage. It could have a catastrophic effect on a man's family life.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman but he must relate his remarks to one of the amendments that is before the House. I invite the hon. Gentleman to do so.

Mr. Marlow: The amendment that I am referring to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is Lords amendment No. 2, which introduces the concept of nuisance or annoyance. I seek leave to speak also to my amendments, which are (a) and (f). What we have in amendment No. 2 is that a man will commit an offence if from a motor vehicle or whatever he
persistently or … in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.
We had a long debate in the Chamber—I think that a similar debate took place in Committee — about the inclusion of the word "persistently". My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State felt that to include the word "persistently" would be to weaken the Bill and to make it to that extent inoperable. However, he did agree that the problem had been debated in their Lordships' House. We are, of course, very grateful to them for that. Their Lordships have a great deal of expertise on this subject. There are many Law Lords and lawyers in another place who have been involved in the courts and know the problems that come from the courts. Their Lordships decided in Committee that "persistently" should be imported into the Bill.
The Bill then had problems, so further amendments had to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake has said that the amendment that suits the purposes of the Bill is No. 2. We now not only have "persistently"—it is not "persistently and" but "persistently or". The "or" is
in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to any other persons in the neighbourhood.

I am concerned to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister precisely what is meant by that clause. I am particularly concerned about the safeguard
subject to section 5(5A)".
I am sure that when my hon. Friend the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker he will have quite a lot to say about that.
The amendment reads:
in such manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women)".
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell the House why we have to include the words "to be likely" and why it cannot just be left
in such manner or in such circumstances as … to cause annoyance".
In other words, why cannot we have a provision that makes it an offence actually to cause annoyance?
What is likely to cause annoyance to one individual is quite different from that which is likely to cause annoyance to another individual. Some people are happy-go-lucky, carefree and relaxed. Some people are a little nervous, a little concerned and a little agitated. By their nature, they are more likely to feel an annoyance than others. What construction would the courts normally put on this? Do they expect a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind to be reasonably annoyed? Some people, even with the best will in the world, are fairly fractious.
Amendment No. 2 states:
or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.
What is "nuisance"? My hon. Friend the Member for Drake told us that it was a well-known concept in the courts, but I am not a lawyer. How grave does a matter have to be for it to be a "nuisance"? If a dog fouls a pavement outside the gate of one's house, is that a nuisance? If someone drives a car slowly up the street in which one lives, is that a nuisance? If a man parks his car in one's drive and spends 15 minutes chatting up five prostitutes and making leery remarks, and the reactions between the man and the prostitutes are offensive to people in the neighbourhood, that is obviously a nuisance. If many people are bobbing around a district looking for prostitutes, jamming the streets, making noises and blowing petrol fumes around the place, that is a nuisance. Where does one draw the line?
I have tabled an amendment which refers to a "serious" nuisance, because I can understand that concept. A serious nuisance causes distress and inconvenience and is a factor that creates a blight in an area. I await the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with interest.
The Bill has been massively and properly amended by the other place. It is a sensitive issue. If the legislation has been wrongly drafted, the lives and reputations of innocent people could be blighted. The Bill is necessary, and I look forward to hearing the explanations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Matthew Parris: The first debate in Standing Committee was on my amendment No. 2 which would have inserted after the word "prostitution"
in a manner likely to cause nuisance or offence.
The amendment was fully debated in Standing Committee, but I was not able to persuade hon. Members that it was a sensible improvement.
The next debate was on whether the element of persistence should be imported into the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr.
Howard) and I argued that it should be. We were unable to persuade the Standing Committee that that was the right change to make.
The House of Commons agreed to let the other place take another look at the matter, and it has done so. Their Lordships have imported into the Bill both the element of persistence and the element of likelihood to cause nuisance or offence. It would be churlish of me to say that that does not represent precisely the improvement that I wanted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is a little unhappy about the element of likelihood to cause nuisance or offence. I understand his fears, but we proposed the importation into the Bill of the element of persistence not because there was an inherent viciousness in persistence which could not attach to a single act but because a person, by being persistent, was more likely to cause nuisance or offence. If the element of persistence is included, there is less likelihood of an innocent person being prosecuted.
If it has to be shown that a person is causing nuisance or offence, that reduces the possibility of an innocent man being prosecuted. In that case, we must clearly define just what it is about persistence that we seek to proscribe. We seek to proscribe the offensive potential of persistence. Although I understand the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I do not object, for those reasons, to the importation of a likelihood to cause nuisance or offence or to the importation of the element of persistence.

Mr. Marlow: One tries to be careful in this place, and I do not think that I ever said that I was against the importation of a nuisance or annoyance. I was concerned about how this provision was made. The matter should be properly debated and given the safeguards of new section 5(5A). This is a matter on which I need significant reassurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and some of my other colleagues are in the Chamber, many of our colleagues are not. It is up to us on their behalf to take an interest in what is happening.

Mr. Parris: My hon. Friend is right. We need reassurance on that point. If my hon. Friend's amendment (b) had been selected, I would have supported him, if necessary in the Division Lobby.
We might seek some reassurance on the likely prosecuting policy of the new prosecution service. I understand that there have been discussions as to the type of advice that might be given. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State says on this matter. He might well offer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and me the reassurance that we seek.
I would not go as far as Lord Denning did in the other place on Third Reading when, referring to the Crown prosecutor, he said:
He will not prosecute an innocent man, or anything of that kind." — Official Report, Houe of Lords, 3 July 1985; Vol. 465, c. 1281.]
His contribution to the evolution of English jurisprudence has been immense — and I do not doubt that it will continue — but I think that he goes further than even the most radical of us would wish to go. I would not assume

that, because the new Crown prosecutor prosecutes, the man involved is to be taken as guilty. I hope that the House does not assume that either.
We were unhappy about a number of aspects of the Bill in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. We let the matter go to the other place for another consideration. Their Lordships have in large measure made the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I sought. It is right to acknowledge that the Bill has been greatly improved in the other place, that these amendments are right and that, taken all in all, with these amendments the Bill will be a useful addition to the statute book.

Mr. Clive Soley: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) got into considerable trouble in Committee and elsewhere for pushing hard on the door that he has just said has opened a little. I was involved in putting forward amendments that referred to "nuisance". The hon. Gentleman got into a great deal of trouble while I did not — I suspect because I am a member of the official Opposition while he is a member of the unofficial opposition. This supports the old theory that one's opponents are in front and one's enemies are behind. We had the unedifying sight of the Conservative party attacking its own members for not sticking to the party line.
12.30 pm
In fairness, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West has pursued the issue determinedly and in a principled way. I stick by my initial position that I put on the Floor of the House and in Committee — that we are trying to reach the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals and minimising the risk of wrongful conviction with the rights of people in some parts of the country who suffer from men driving or walking around their areas trying to find women whom they think to be prostitutes. Those areas tend to have many prostitutes. It was recognised that that was a problem.
I still take the view, as I did when we began to discuss the Bill, that we are attempting to deal with a complex problem by dealing with only a small part of it. As I have said on a number of occasions, the problem is not one of prostitutes per se. All hon. Members know that it is not and never has been an offence to be a prostitute. It is an offence to solicit for prostitution in a public place.
We need a much more detailed programme to enable prostitutes to meet their clients without causing a public nuisance. That is the core of the problem that we still have not resolved. At the same time, I recognise, as Members on both sides of the House do, that there has been a problem in some limited parts of the United Kingdom.
One of my anxieties, which is shared by a number of my hon. Friends and one or two Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West, is that we are legislating for England and Wales as a whole on a problem that affects parts of the country only. That is always a danger that we should avoid if possible. I made suggestions in Committee and on the Floor of the House as to how we should deal with the matter, but it is not appropriate for me to go over that ground again.
The House of Lords has, to some extent, come to our rescue. We were struggling to find a form of words which introduced the concept of nuisance to people who lived in the areas that we were discussing. I put it to the Minister


that I thought it possible to find a form of words which would enable residents who felt that there was a nuisance to give evidence to a court or, alternatively, some form of drafting which would enable that nuisance to be made explicit in the Bill. The House of Lords has managed to do that.
In doing so, the House of Lords has introduced the concept of persistence. The Opposition have mixed views on the issue of persistence. There is a feeling that a person should not have to commit an act more than once for it to be an offence. If something is an offence, it is an offence on the first occasion. The act should not have to be committed two, three, four or more times to prove that it is an offence. That has always been an argument against persistence.
We have the problem because "persistence" was introduced in the concept of prostitution in the first instance. It is always instructive to bear in mind that that was done with good intentions, as so often in this place — to protect women, it was thought, from wrongful conviction. The idea was that a woman should be warned at least three times by the police before she could be charged with being a prostitute. That has resulted in women being taken before the courts and described as common prostitutes. To be described in court as a common prostitute, it was accepted that one had already been warned three times about one's behaviour. We are now introducing the concept of a "common kerb crawler". That is the problem that arises from using the word "persistent". It shows the difficulty of legislating on this matter coherently and consistently.
I believe that the Lords amendment improves the Bill, for many of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West. I am still not happy with it, for all the reasons that I have given previously, but I accept that it may be the only way we have of dealing with the problem in the parts of the country that have been mentioned.
I look forward to hearing the Minister — if I may have his attention for a moment while I refer to him. There is anxiety about whether the Bill will be used wrongfully. Perhaps the Minister will give the House a commitment that the figures showing the number of people arrested, charged and convicted will be made available to the House so that we can see how the Act works over a period.
I understand that the Minister is also prepared to give a commitment to the House about the guidance given to the prosecution service. With the Lords amendments and those commitments from the Minister, I do not wish to delay the Bill's passage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): May I first say how grateful I am for the helpful way that hon. Members have addressed the task of considering the Lords amendments. I shall try to respond as fully and cogently as I can to the points that have been raised, because it is important that those matters are considered with care. As we all acknowledge, the House should never take lightly the creation of a new criminal offence. Given the careful consideration in both Houses, no one can say that it has been taken in anything other than a most careful way.
Before getting down to some of the details, I think that it would be churlish not to pay the warmest of tributes to

my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for the skill and determination with which she has taken the Bill through the House—

Mr. Ian Mikardo: And a bit of luck.

Mr. Mellor: I was going to come to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake has also kept in touch with the Bill's progress in the other place, where it was piloted through by a distinguished predecessor, Lady Vickers, who for many years was a most distinguished representative of the city of Plymouth, as my hon. Friend is now. I welcome the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) to his place because he has played a constructive role in the discussions. As he said, my hon. Friend also required a bit of luck, but a bit of luck in a good cause is something that we can all welcome. In the end, I suspect that one of the principal reasons why hon. Members wanted the Bill to go through was not simply that it addressed a serious problem in a serious way, but the respect and regard that they have for my hon. Friend and their wish that she should be gratified in her legitimate desire to change the law in this sensitive area.
When the Bill was conceived, it was designed to create three different offences. That followed careful examination by the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the present state of the law on sexual offences, particularly in relation to the harassment of women in public places. The committee took seven years to consider those matters. We recognise the difficulties that faced the committee in making judgments that are not just legal — I remember the point made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar on that. It is not just a lawyers' paradise. We are making social judgments, too. It was in recognition of that that the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences was established, which consisted of people from social services and education, probation officers, psychiatrists, and so on, who were intended to broaden the ambit of the discussion and ensure that the legal discussion did not just fasten on the narrow lawyers' interest, but took account of the wider social implications.
I recognise the matter that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has been at pains to point out throughout the Bill — that, while the Criminal Law Revision Committee is considering the whole of the law on sexual offences, the Bill deals with only a narrow part of it. I understand why he and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) have said on several occasions that it would have been better if the Bill had dealt across the board with the criminal law on sexual offences, particularly the vexed question of the extent to which prostitution may be permitted in today's society. In an ideal world, I feel sure that that is what we wanted to do. However, so difficult is the consideration of the law on prostitution that it has not even been possible yet for the Criminal Law Revision Committee to conclude its deliberations on that matter.
The difficult decision that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake had to take, and with which we in the Home Office assisted her, was whether the problem of kerb crawling and some of the associated difficulties had reached such a peak that it could not be left on the shelf to await the receipt of further advice. The inevitable difficulty, particularly in a congested Department such as the Home Office, is finding a place in the legislative programme for a major and full-scale reform.
I felt that there was an element of urgency about the matter, which was impressed on me by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who is not here but who has taken a great deal of interest in the matter as the hon. Member representing the Bedford hill area. In an Adjournment debate in February last year the hon. Gentleman raised the problem of kerb crawling in his and other areas in very strong terms. He said that, having banged on the door of just about every Minister at the Home Office, he believed that action could no longer be delayed. On that basis—rightly, as I am sure the House agrees — I asked the Criminal Law Revision Committee if it could bring forward its consideration of the kerb crawling aspect of the law on prostitution so that its report would be available in the summer of 1984. If any hon. Member was then minded to bring in a Bill on the subject, as my hon. Friend the Member for Drake subsequently was, the House would be able to pass a law on the matter far more quickly than would otherwise have been possible. I am very glad that the Criminal Law Revision Committee was able to do that and that its advice was set out in such straightforward terms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake then had to decide whether to follow the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee or whether to take a different approach to the problem. She was persuaded — like the Criminal Law Revision Committee and, I believe, the whole House — that the time had come to address the problem of kerb crawling and that one could no longer take the attitude taken in the 1957 report that the problem had not yet become so serious and commonplace as to justify making kerb crawling a criminal offence. The balance of convenience has plainly changed and the Criminal Law Revision Committee was right to recommend a change in the law.
The question which aroused controversy both here and in another place was how the law should be changed to strike the difficult balance between providing the relief from this problem that women in many areas undoubtedly need and taking account of the difficulties which arise in sensitive matters of this nature as we have done on previous occasions by introducing the concept of persistence into other statutes relating to sexual behaviour in recognition of the fact that the risk of a miscarriage of justice, which may arise under any criminal statute, is perhaps a greater risk in this area of the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Drake elected to follow the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and to create three offences. The first deals clearly and unequivocally with the problem of kerb crawling and makes it clear that if a man solicits a woman from a motor vehicle for the purpose of prostitution an offence is committed. That obviates the need to rely on the rusty old blunderbuss of the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 which, apart from many other drawbacks, can result only in binding over. The intention is not to jam the courts with kerb crawlers but to send out a clear message that kerb crawling is a criminal offence and thus to deter many people who might have indulged in the practice while it remained hedged about with equivocation.
It was recognised that in the case of offences occurring in the street but unrelated to kerb crawling by motor vehicles a requirement of persistence was appropriate, as is already the case in the parallel provisions relating to homosexual soliciting. The fact that persistence is required in the case of people on foot but not in the case of those

soliciting from motor vehicles has struck some hon. Members on both sides of this House and in another place as rather odd and there has been legitimate and persistent debate on that aspect at every stage of the Bill. I make no complaint about that, and I know that others will make no complaint about the fact that I have a very firm view on the matter to which I still hold.
The revision committee then considered the more difficult problem of whether solicitation of women in a manner likely to cause fear, irrespective of whether it was related to prostitution in a street environment, should be an offence. It recommended that it should, and my hon. Friend the Member for Drake took up the matter. That was far and away the most difficult proposition among many difficulties in the Bill. It has been recognised generally here and in another place that, although the advice of the revision committee is worth while, we were not wholly persuaded that it would be appropriate to broaden the scope of the Bill to include cinemas and other places where, perhaps, the case for change is not so clear-cut.
Because of the extraordinary happenings on those two Fridays a couple of months ago when the Bill died and was revived, we did not take out clause 3. It was taken out in another place and we shall have an opportunity to give that our blessing later.
12.45 pm
I am glad that there was discussion of clause 4—the increase in penalties — in another place because the matter has not been subject to amendments, although some have been proposed. It is a grave and potentially dangerous anomaly that the penalty for indecent assault, which can be committed by a serious sex offender, is only two years. The courts have drawn attention to the fact that such a sentence is wholly inappropriate and that it could be in everybody's interests, including the offender, to confine an offender and to increase the penalty to 10 years.
The increase in the penalty for attempted rape from seven years to life imprisonment would, but for a proviso in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, already be in place. That Act rightly took the view that, because the intention is always to commit the full offence, to be guilty of attempt, the intention must be more serious than the act. As the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar, who is nodding assent, knows, somebody can be convicted of murder if he intends to cause serious bodily harm but he cannot be convicted of attempted murder unless he intends to kill. On advice from the revision committee, the House took the view, in 1981, that the penalty for an attempt should always be the same as the penalty for the completed offence on the basis that that left the courts with proper discretion to sentence.
Attempted rape was left out of the 1981 Act because the revision committee was considering the merits of that offence. It was thought right to leave the matter as it was so that it could be taken up in a full-scale review of sexual offences, to which the hon. Member for Hammersmith looks forward. Time has passed and the pond has perhaps got a little murkier. It is not appropriate to leave this gap any longer. A dangerous sex maniac might not succeed in carrying out the full act of rape, but he might have such a history of offending that, having committed the rape, he would have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
As the Minister who deals with life sentence matters, I know that some of the most difficult cases on which to make a decision about release are not the homicide cases


but the non-homicide cases in which people, when at liberty, have been driven to acts of ever-increasingly serious sexual misbehaviour. Without going into the matter in too much detail, it is surely an anomaly that in dealing with distinctions of millimetres on the question of when attempted rape becomes rape, the courts should have their hands tied. Therefore, I am sure that the changes that have been made will be widely welcomed.
We are principally concerned with clauses 1 and 2. I have made clear my view that to import any consideration of persistence or of nuisance and annoyance would weaken the impact of the Bill. My views were accepted in this House but not in the other place, although I was glad to see that that most distinguished of common lawyers, Lord Denning, took the opportunity in the debate — as obviously one hoped that he and others like him would — to make clear his view that that was the right approach.
The process of legislation, particularly on private Members' Bills, involves each of us giving the best advice that we can to the House, but if others choose to disagree and their view prevails, it is then up to us all to make the best that we can of the new arrangements, and certainly not to stand in the way of the Bill proceeding because it does not represent what one would personally regard as the best arrangement.
Their Lordships, having taken their decision about persistence, then made certain amendments which enabled the Bill to be a workable Bill. Therefore, I am not grudging in my acceptance of it or in my recommendation that we should accept it. I am warm in my feelings towards the Bill, although I would have been positively steaming about it if I had had my way entirely. But that is life.
In the debate in the other place the issue of persistence was considered. Several peers took part in the debate, some with legal qualifications, others without. However, we do not want our debates to become blighted with apartheid in the sense of Members having or not having legal qualifications. After the debate, by a majority of 33 to 26, the decision was taken to insert the word "persistently."
After that there were deliberations in the other place and also outside. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Drake played some part in those deliberations. We tried to see whether, the decision having been taken that the element of persistence was needed, there was a case for introducing a parallel offence which, in a very specific case, would not require the element of persistence. We wanted to ensure that the Bill would be workable and deal with the central problem that had been troubling all of us so much.
There are two competing problems with which we are concerned. The first is the blight upon an area where prostitutes operate openly in the streets and where there is kerb crawling by potential clients. The prostitutes are happy about that but, obviously, not the rest of the community. Several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West and Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), have had the quite legitimate concern that one single act could be misinterpreted by an over-zealous policeman. Inevitably, the prostitute herself would not be available to give evidence, being happy about the transaction, and it would be wrong to blight someone's prospects, career and future

family life — matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has referred eloquently today and on other occasions — on the basis of one equivocal incident. For that reason, it was felt necessary to have the clear safeguard that such an incident should have to happen twice.
However, having agreed with that view, their Lordships recognised in their intensive discussions that that would not deal with the other major problem that has caused us so much concern and led many people to want to change the law, which is the situation where the woman who is the object of the solicitation is not a prostitute, but an ordinary woman — one's sister or wife, or someone else's daughter — going home or to visit a friend and not dressed in a way that could be described as extravagant or sexually provocative.
Polls in Bedford hill and many other parts of the country showed that such women were regularly being propositioned, and their pleas for redress are every bit as intense as those of people who are embarrassed by the fact that their home street has become a haunt of known prostitutes.
If such a woman had been the subject of an unwarranted approach, probably in abusive and insulting terms, it would be wrong to require the same thing to happen to someone else before there were any means of redress. The recognition of that fact has united us. We have all been troubled about that matter, however we may differ about the ways of building in safeguards. I know that that aspect worries my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West put it well in Committee when he said:
I can see that to embarrass a woman gravely or to inconvenience her seriously may be enough of a crime to warrant prosecution. Many women, particularly those who live in London and in the areas where the problem exists, are inured to such solicitation and are probably no longer put in fear by it, simply because it happens so often, but that does not mean that it does not offend or inconvenience them, or that those who solicit should not be prosecuted." — [Official Report, Standing Committee C, 20 February 1985; c. 7.]
There was common ground in their Lordships' consideration of finding a way whereby innocent women — our wives, sisters or mothers; the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) showed how catholic is the taste of some of these gentlemen when she recounted a personal experience of a kerb crawler—can be protected.
Equally, their Lordships wanted to be sure that vexatious and improper prosecutions would not arise. That is why the concept of nuisance and annoyance was exhumed, as so many parts of the Bill have been exhumed from time to time, and inserted in parallel with the concept of persistence, so that if nuisance is caused to persons in the neighbourhood or annoyance is caused to the woman, there is no reason why a criminal penalty should not ensue. That is the proposal which their Lordships ask us to accept.
There need to be safeguards. The fact that the words "nuisance" and "annoyance" have been inserted makes it virtually inevitable that there will have to be evidence from either the woman who was the victim of the solicitation or a local resident who clearly saw and heard what was going on. The safeguard is built in by the need to establish nuisance or annoyance and not merely the fact that the act of solicitation took place.
I appreciate that, as many hon. Members and noble Lords have said, perhaps we should take advantage of the recent creation, with all-party support, of an independent


prosecution system to ensure that, even more than anyone could claim today, there is an objectivity in the decision to take a case to court, given all the implications that follow from that and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North spoke so eloquently. There is a case for providing that only in the most exceptional circumstances should a case under the nuisance or annoyance provisions proceed without a non-police witness being available.
As my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out, the Director of Public Prosecutions is ready, if the House thinks it appropriate, to give guidance to Crown prosecutors about the operation of this part of clause 1. The guidance would be along the lines that where the charge alleges annoyance to the woman solicited or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood, it should, save in exceptional circumstances, be supported by the evidence of someone other than a police officer, and, wherever possible, by that of the woman herself. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North sees that as a step forward. It binds in to the point that I made clear to the hon. Member for Hammersmith when we last considered the Bill — that we shall monitor the number of cases that are put to the independent prosecution service as being worthy of prosecution, the number it decides to prosecute, and the number that result in conviction. Those three sensitive figures will show whether the Act is being properly applied.
1 pm
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that we should not put innocent transactions, such as asking directions, in jeopardy. We have had to strike a balance between wanting to protect women and wanting to protect men from unreasonable prosecutions. After all our efforts, I believe that we have struck that balance, and obviously I hope that hon. Members agree.
Before I deal with some of the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, I wish to pay warm tribute, not merely to those in this Chamber who have helped to ensure the passage of the Bill, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West who, having recognised how much progress has been made, spoke warmly in support of the proposition today, but to those in the other place who have played a leading role in ensuring, at some difficulty to the procedures of the other place, that the Bill was debated two nights running this week so that it could return to this House in time.
Lord Denning gave the wise advice that one would expect from the foremost common lawyer of the century. There was considerable assistance from the Opposition Front Bench, especially Lord Mishcon, who was ably assisted by Lord Elystan-Morgan, who was the most reluctant to accept the arrangements, but in the end was willing to do so. I am grateful to him for that, as I am to Lord Houghton, for whom I have a particularly high regard because of our joint work on animal welfare and experimentation—issues with which my hon. Friend the Member for Drake is also intimately concerned. He was undoubtedly unhappy about some elements of the Bill, but he determined that sufficient had been done to change it to his satisfaction. I salute him for a typically courageous and principled approach to the matter, which has been echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire,

West and for Northampton, North. Lord Harris, a former Minister of State, Home Office, Lord Wigoder, a distinguished practitioner in criminal law, and, last but not least, Lord Monson all took part in intensive discussions and helped to bring the Bill through to this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North has properly asked telling questions about what exactly the Bill means. I want to deal with his important and valuable points. He reminded us that clause 1 will read as follows:
A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman (or different women) for the purpose of prostitution (a) from a motor vehicle while it is in a street or public place; or
(b) in a street or public place while in the immediate vicinity of a motor vehicle that he has just got out of or off, persistently or, subject to section 5(5A) below, in such a manner or in such circumstances as to be likely to cause annoyance to the woman (or any of the women) solicited, or nuisance to other persons in the neighbourhood.
The first point that we must make about that is that it creates two alternative ways of bringing the offence. The second point that should be emphasised is that, to show that what we say about the role of the independent prosecution service is not just window dressing — I strongly commend this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North because it goes a long way to meeting his points about the innocent not suffering — clause 5(5A) states that this part of section 1 should not come into force until the independent prosecution service is operating in the area. Therefore, I have entered into a meaningful commitment today. There is no risk of the law being enforced for about 12 months in some cases, and possibly longer in others, by arrangements that are not in accordance with the new framework that we have established. That shows the good faith that we have been anxious to establish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North asked me about nuisance. One reason why their Lordships were attracted to the proposition which, in its final form, emerged from discussions in which the lead was taken by Lord Denning and by First Parliamentary Counsel, was that we should distinguish between what must be proved in relation to the woman solicited and the neighbourhood, because their interests are different. For the woman, we wanted an offence of annoyance, and I shall come to my hon. Friend's pertinent questions about how that should be tested in a moment. As for the neighbourhood, we are talking about nuisance, not annoyance, because nuisance to a place is the commonly understood, familiar tool in the courts. It is much better to cleave to words which lawyers are accustomed to using in other contexts than to use new words.
My hon. Friend posed several carefully thought-out questions, and I do not believe that it is ducking the questions to say that it is impossible with this, as with any other issue of fact, to give a conclusive answer. Such issues of fact must be determined by the courts, which will consider the background to the alleged offence, basing their consideration on the way in which they approach nuisance in many other contexts. The word "nuisance" is found in civil and criminal law. Nuisance is a question of fact, and the court will investigate all the circumstances of the case: when it happened; the manner in which it happened; the effect of what happened; and whether all the circumstances lead to the conclusion — this is the key point — that the nuisance was material and substantial.
The damage — this is the reinforcement which my hon. Friend seeks — must not be merely sentimental,


speculative, trifling, temporary, fleeting or evanescent. I have not dug that list of words out of "Roget's Thesaurus", they have come from cases in which the courts have said, based on the way in which they have dealt with the concept of nuisance, that it must be none of those things. The framework exists for a common-sense recognition of what nuisance is.
We come to the equally difficult point of the objectivity of the complaint. My hon. Friend is troubled by the possibility of a woman being excessively worried by what would be regarded by others as perfectly normal approaches, and that that woman could wreak havoc with the career of a man who simply drove up to her and asked, "What is the way to the public house?" The woman could say that she had been approached in a way that gave her the right to complain under the offences contained in the Bill.
The key to this is the use of the words "likely to", which I know trouble my hon. Friend. I believe that the words "likely to" will ensure that a properly objective test is applied. We do not want a definition of nuisance or annoyance that varies with the length of the individual's foot. We want the courts to be able to say, "Would a person of reasonable firmness, placed in a similar position, be caused annoyance?" In other words, was it likely, and would a reasonable person in the offender's position know, that such an approach was likely to cause annoyance?

Mr. Marlow: The amendment says:
likely to cause annoyance to the woman".
Does that imply a woman of reasonable firmness or the actual woman involved in the incident?

Mr. Mellor: That is a perceptive question. I believe that it means likely to cause annoyance to women. It does not mean that the court would take into account the particular circumstances of the woman, unless those circumstances were obvious. If the incident involved a woman with a white stick, the court would be entitled to take account of the fact that it is more likely that some words would cause annoyance to a disabled person, who in any event would be disoriented by any approach, than to a woman in full possession of her faculties.
I believe — and, what is more important, some of the distinguished people who have been mentioned as being involved in this believe — that an objective test is being established. It is proper and helpful for my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North to ascertain this. I agree that if the House were not satisfied that this was an objective test, it would be entitled to be sceptical, but there is an intention that there should be an objective test, and I think that that intention has been properly carried into effect with the wording.

Mr. Parris: Does my hon. Friend's argument work the other way? Suppose that a woman was not offended or annoyed, perhaps because she was a policewoman, although in plain clothes. If the solicitation was such that, had she been anyone other than a policewoman inured to this kind of thing, she would have been annoyed or offended, would the solicitation be likely to annoy or offend her?

Mr. Mellor: That would follow, but the element that is different, and that we have added by way of a safeguard, is that no longer are words of solicitation for the purpose

of prostitution enough in themselves. They have also to be of a kind likely to cause annoyance. In other words, they have to go quite far.
A purely innocent member of the public might find that any words of solicitation were likely to cause annoyance, so the differences in some cases may not be great. However, it is important, because it gives a firm basis to the contention that lies at the heart of this matter — that there should, wherever possible — and only in exceptional circumstances not — be available a person who is not a police officer to give evidence. If these people are so offended that they look to us for redress, they have to be prepared to play a part in getting redress. They cannot slough off that responsibility on to others. We have achieved that, and changed the position.
I hope that what I have said satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. I am happy to give way to him if I can be of any assistance to him on any other points.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his patience, his careful exposition of the position, and the way that he has taken account of the points that I have made. I feel that the safeguards that he has suggested stand a good chance of achieving what both he and I are seeking to do. I congratulate him on what he has done.

Mr. Mellor: That is a most handsome remark for my hon. Friend to make. I am extremely grateful. It has been no hardship to deal with these points because they are essential to our consideration of the Bill. It is right that these matters should be properly looked into. I have always been concerned to see that everyone recognises that in the end — I had to learn this lesson as much as anybody else — the process of getting the Bill right is one of give and take. All of us will come with different views, and we shall not get everything we want.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that he is anxious only to test whether the Bill meets the worries that he legitimately has. I am glad that he thinks that I have satisfied him, and I thank him for his useful contribution, now purged of any suggestion that it was based on malevolence towards the Bill's future. I thank him for the interest that he has shown on previous occasions. The Bill strikes a balance that all new criminal legislation would do well to achieve—a balance between effective controls of activities which the criminal law should address and effective safeguards for those whose activities should not be drawn within its scope.
1.15 pm
The message which I hope we are able to send out this morning is that the buying and selling of the services of a prostitute must not take place in and around the homes of ordinary people who wish to go about their daily lives without the nuisance and offence that is caused on an intolerable scale in many inner-city areas.
The message also goes out in the Bill that serious sexual offences will be adequately punished as a result of the increases in the maximum penalties which clause 3 effects. I consider both signals to be important and worth while.

Mr. Soley: I am sure that it was inadvertent, but given that the Minister is sending out a message, he might wish to reconsider the phrase he used about the buying and selling of the services of a prostitute "in and around" homes. The Bill does not apply within the home. He may wish to clarify that.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is right. We are dealing with the public manifestation of the problem. I am grateful to him for following my remarks with care enough to correct me when I am incorrect.
We have managed to build in the safeguards that the House wanted, while doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Drake and I consider to be absolutely paramount — sending out the message that kerb crawling is an offence. The fact that the Bill covers one approach to a woman who is caused nuisance and annoyance — and which is shown by objective analysis to have been an offence — means that people cannot go kerb crawling thinking that they can have one bite of the cherry and that, so long as they get that right, there will be no problem.
We have been greatly assisted by the other place in our consideration of these matters. I commend to the House the amendments that their Lordships have suggested.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 3

SOLICITING A WOMAN IN A MANNER LIKELY TO CAUSE HER FEAR

Lords amendment: No. 4 leave out Clause 3.

Miss Fookes: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is simplicity itself. It seeks to delete clause 3, the essential substance of which reads:
A man commits an offence if he solicits a woman for sexual purposes in a manner likely to cause her fear.
Their Lordships have been good enough to honour an undertaking given by me, in consultation with the Minister, to this House before their Lordships considered the Bill. It was felt that the clause could give rise to serious concerns and that perhaps it went too wide in what is essentially, I still think, a useful proceeding to ensure that a woman has redress when she is put in fear by approaches from a man for sexual purposes of whatever kind. We recognised that that was a worry and it was understood that we would not press it. This amendment achieves that, and I am grateful to their Lordships for making it.
There have been numerous excitements with the Bill, both here and in the other place. It may date me to refer to a splendid little wireless programme in the days of my childhood entitled "Dick Barton, Special Agent." From 6.45 pm to 7 pm this hero had the most exciting adventures. Sure enough, at half a minute to 7 o'clock he would be within an inch of losing his life. That happened every night. I felt like that myself when I had several narrow shaves with the Bill. Indeed, there were several this week.
When I say that I am grateful for the assistance that I have received, I am not reciting those words without

feeling. I am intensely grateful for the assistance that I have received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and others who have been helpful to me from the very beginning of the Bill's passage. Those others will know who they are. I am grateful also to those who were willing to sponsor the Bill. It is quite an undertaking for a private Member to carry forward such a measure, bearing in mind that it seeks to create more than one new criminal offence.
I am grateful, of course, to those who served as members of the Committee. I thank especially Lady Vickers, who had such a distinguished career in this place. Lady Vickers' part in the Bill's passage through both Houses involved her in a great deal of work and some anxiety. I am grateful to those of their Lordships who gave a great deal of their attention — many of them have great experience of criminal matters and matters of life generally — to the Bill.
I am happy that the Bill retains the essential features which it was my intention to embody in law from the beginning. I hope that the Bill will be satisfactory to the hard-pressed residents of red light areas who have suffered for many years from the increasing menace of kerb crawling.
During the Bill's passage through Parliament I have been impressed by the number of letters that I have received and by the meetings that I have had with residents' associations, especially those from Wandsworth. I learned a great deal in the course of the proceedings and it is with the greatest pleasure that I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Marlow: I hasten to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) that I am not rising a la Dick Barton because I think that the amendment requires another 68 minutes of debate. I rise purely to say, as one whose activities might have implied some disagreement with some of her proposals earlier in the proceedings, how grateful the whole House is to her and how grateful the country will be that she has tackled this problem in the way that she has, and that she has brought forward a measure which I think the House now believes will deal with this problem, this blight, which affects many of our inner-city areas.
Although my hon. Friend might have been concerned about some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) and I were making, we were concerned purely to see that there was no danger, in a new criminal law, that innocent people could be brought before the courts and their reputations and lives blighted accordingly. I feel that we have now reached a stage when my hon. Friend's requirements have been met and the innocent are no longer in danger. I would like finally to say that I congratulate my hon. Friend on her courage and persistence and on getting it right.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Licensing (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
I should like to pay tribute both to Lord Harmar-Nicholls for bringing forward this measure in the other place and to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who formally moved the Second Reading and assisted the Bill through its Committee stage, which was not too controversial or arduous and lasted about 15 minutes. Because the Bill had slid through the House so quickly, you may be prepared, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow us to say a little more about it on Third Reading than would normally be the case.
This is a modest measure, but we must bear in mind the important part that the entertainment industry plays in our nation's economy. The contribution of hotels, restaurants, dance places, café entertainment and many public houses is significant and extremely valuable. In our balance of payments, the invisibles earned by these sectors are second only in total to those earned by banking.
In a limited number of those hotels, restaurants, dance halls cafés and public houses where entertainment and food are provided, it is possible under present legislation to apply to licensing magistrates and, having justified a need, to be granted special hours certificates or extended hours certificates, which result in those establishments being able to continue to sell liquor and part of the general entertainment between 12 midnight and 2 am, instead of finishing at midnight. The certificates extend business for only two hours. The applicants must demonstrate to the magistrates that there is a need. The certificates are available for 310 of the 365 days in the year, which leaves 55 days in which they cannot be obtained. Fifty, two of those days are Sundays, which leaves three days — Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday. The Bill is concerned only with those three days. It will extend to those days the same privilege that is given to the other 310 days. We have all accepted that privilege. It is practised in Scotland. We are talking about another two hours of business on three days only, or another six hours of drinking a year. That is not very much.
The measure is important because alcohol consumption is such a controversial subject. Any discussion of liquor licensing and permitted hours inevitably returns to the Erroll Committee's report of 1972, Cmnd. 5154. Since then, there have been two attempts to pass a Bill providing more flexible hours — the first was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the second by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). Both attempted to extend the hours from 11 am to 11 pm, primarily to give flexibility. This is what the licensed trade has been reqesting for so long. The Bills attempted also to allow children under 14 in to pubs, and perhaps it was for that reason as much as any other that they failed.
Nevertheless, the debate about those Bills in the House and outside showed that there is anxiety over increasing alcohol consumption and pressure has been brought on the Government by various bodies, notably the National Union of Licensed Victuallers. I should declare an interest because I act as a parliamentary adviser to that organisation. I should, perhaps, also declare an interest as

a licensee, although I am afraid that the Bill, as it stands, will not have much effect on public houses. Representatives of the tourist industry and the breweries have also made representations about making our licensing laws more flexible as has happened in Scotland.
"Drinking Sensibly", published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1981, recorded that there were indications that extended permitted hours and Sunday opening in Scotland had not resulted in any increase in total consumption.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member should be careful. I do not wish to seem to be too intolerant, but he is aware that on Third Reading we are required to confine our remarks to what is in the Bill and not what might have been, compared with other legislation.

Mr. Colvin: I stand corrected, but I believe that the Bill should be viewed in the context of the wider licensing laws. That is why I think that you will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that everything that I say will have a direct bearing on the measure before us. I shall, however, keep my remarks as brief as possible.
The subject of flexible licensing hours is relevant to the Bill. The key points are, first, that the present licensing law was designed to meet the social and economic conditions prevailing shortly after the first world war. That is a long time ago, and the time has come for some reform.
Secondly, the circumstances are now dramatically different. There are new work patterns, greatly increased social expectations and a vastly increased public demand for up-to-date catering and leisure facilities. Those are, of course, growth industries. We are interested in jobs. Those are labour-intensive industries and should be encouraged.
Thirdly, the ability to provide better services to meet customers' requirements is generally inhibited by the present rigid system of permitted hours. That is another reason why I welcome the Bill. It will give customers further flexibility on at least three days a year.
Fourthly, the retailers most disadvantaged by the present system include over 78,000 small businesses — independently owned and tenanted public houses, restaurants and hotels.
Fifthly, in Scotland the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, which was introduced following the Clayson committee inquiry, introduced a wide measure of flexibility that has resulted in social and economic benefits.
Sixthly, many public houses in Scotland have changed their character since the new law. They now offer much more food, better services and general amenities.
That is an important point to bear in mind because under the Licensing Act 1964 the section that the Bill aims to amend limits the provision to catering outlets, hotels and other such establishments offering food and entertainment. In many cases, our public houses do neither. When passed, the Bill might be an incentive to our public houses to broaden the scope of the services that they offer. Many more now offer food, but to offer food and entertainment generally would not just widen the scope of their own businesses but would be good for the economy generally, and would enable them to benefit from the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great care. He knows that when he talks about a growth area, he is talking about


increased sales. He knows that there is also a massive growth area in the problems associated with alcohol abuse. Therefore, can he say a little more about those problems and that growth area, and put it in the context of the growth area of employment, income and so on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) will not be tempted down that road. I have been very flexible and tolerant so far. We have strayed a long way from what is in the Bill. I hope that we shall get back to it.

Mr. Colvin: I shall not reply directly to that question. I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will forgive me. Nevertheless, he has raised an important point. It is in the context of alcohol abuse that the debate on more flexible hours is being conducted. That is why the next point that I wish to make is relevant.
Government statistics have suggested that there has been a massive drop in drunkenness offences in Scotland since the new law was introduced, which must be partly as a result of the flexible hours system. A survey was carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and it is worth quoting the summary at the end, which says:
The preliminary anaysis … has shown that an increase in alcohol consumption occurred in Scotland between 1976 and 1984, and that the increase was almost entirely contributed by women … Since consumption by men did not rise between 1976 and 1984 it seems unlikely that the increase in women's drinking is a direct consequence of the changes in licensing legislation, but rather that it results from a change in Scotland to a more relaxed attitude towards drinking in general, and in particular towards women's drinking. It is perhaps because of this more relaxed approach to drinking that more women now drink in public houses, and that the extensions to licensing hours brought about by the 1976 Act tend to be seen as having led to more sensible drinking, rather than as offering a temptation for people to drink more.
That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Soley: Keeping within the rules of order, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the research on that project, which I welcome, is not as complete as we should like. Surely one of the principal guides to which the hon. Gentleman should address himself is not charges of drunkenness, which are not a good indicator, but the number of cases of cirrhosis of the liver, which have increased, although only marginally.

Mr. Colvin: I do not think that I dare answer that question. You were lenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing me to slip in a reply to the hon. Gentleman's previous question.
No doubt, if the Minister is so minded and has a word in the ear of the Home Secretary, we may see a Bill in the House before long during which we can debate in detail the matter that the hon. Member for Hammersmith raised.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that only the most extreme temperance fanatic could argue that the passage of the Bill would lead to an increase in alcohol abuse? We are dealing with only three days out of the whole year.

Mr. Colvin: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why none of the temperance fanatics are present today to argue against the Bill. They have read it and seen that it is modest in what it attempts to do. Therefore, they are happy to see it go on to the statute book.
We should like a system of licensing that is on more flexible lines. I look upon the Bill as the first step down

that track. A more flexible system would enable premises retailing alcohol to adjust their trading arrangements to meet the needs of local communities. For example, the extensions granted for summer trading might be different from those granted for winter trading. The system should take account of the vastly different work patterns—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better stick to Good Friday, Maundy Thursday and Easter eve.

Mr. Colvin: The Bill seeks to begin to bring in a more flexible system on Good Fridays, Maunday Thursdays and Easter Saturdays. Our hotel and licensed trades are already renowned for the service that they give. The Bill will allow them to offer a better service on those three days. I am glad that the Government see no need to object to these modest proposals, but I must have a suspicious nature because I wonder whether, rather than regarding the Bill as the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of more flexible licensing hours, the Government hope that if they agree to these proposals they will manage to keep the licensed trade quiet for a few more years. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will confirm that the Government regard the Bill as the first step towards a more flexible system. Detailed analysis of the Scottish findings will provide the evidence required to support the introduction of a further Bill before long. It may be too late for the Queen's Speech this year, but perhaps in 1986—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with the Bill before the House today and not with Bills which may be before the House at some future time.

Mr. Colvin: In conclusion, I believe that the House unanimously welcomes the Bill. We regard it as a first step, though unfortunately a tiny step, towards a more flexible licensing system and we very much hope that the Government see it in the same light and not merely as a way to keep the licensing lobby quiet for a few more years. There has been growing concern on both sides of the House about the need for a more flexible licensing system. All the evidence from law enforcement officers, doctors and the trades concerned is that a more flexible system would be beneficial. We shall, therefore, be justified in giving the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Greg Knight: To put the Bill into perspective we need briefly to consider existing licensing legislation. I say that en passant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is amazing that although the common law imposed no restrictions at all on the sale of intoxicating liquor we now have a complicated and archaic web of legislation on permitted hours which vary in their application to public houses, restaurants and clubs.
Anyone who is unsure whether the Bill should receive a Third Reading has only to consider that Scotland, Ulster, the Channel islands and virtually every other country in Europe all have more tolerant and flexible licensing hours than we have. Most solicitors regard licensing law with dread. The 93rd edition of Paterson's "Licensing Acts" summarises the legislation relating to licensed premises and covers a large number of Acts of Parliament, including the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Acts and the Licensing Act 1964 which the Bill seeks to amend as well as various Weights and Measures Acts.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that the Bill is an extremely modest measure. Under the 1964 Act, a limited number of hotels, restaurants, dance halls and cafés where entertainment and food are provided can apply to the licensing magistrates for special extended hours certificates allowing them to continue to sell liquor as part of their general entertainment between midnight and 2 am. I gather that, in London, they can go on until 3 am. A growing number of people find such a provision most useful. Extensions for two hours are available for 310 out of the 365 days in the year. That leaves 55 days for which certificates cannot be applied for, of which 52 are Sundays. The Bill does not affect Sundays but merely deletes from the 1964 Act Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday. If the Bill were accepted, the law in England and Wales would be in line with that in Scotland.
The Bill has been described as modest. That is something of an over-statement. It was said in another place that we should take care about what licensing provision we allow during Easter as it has special religious significance. Sections 70 and 76 of the 1964 Act should not apply to Easter, it was argued. Most people regard Easter as a holiday. Sporting events such as motor racing are permitted and we are entitled to ask why discotheques and restaurants which are allowed to stay open until 2 am at other times should not enjoy the same privilege during Easter.
The Bill does not amend general licensing hours and the 52 Sundays that I mentioned will not be affected. It merely irons out a quirk in our law, and I hope that the House supports it. In Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that he would not oppose it. I hope that the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) means that the House will pass this modest but welcome Bill.

Mr. James Couchman: This is indeed a modest little Bill and I shall confine myself to making a small speech on it. It alters the law regarding Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter eve only in respect of the limited number of licensed premises which benefit from an extended hours order or a special hours certificate. The Bill brings the law in respect of those three days into line with the rest of the year apart from Sundays.
This is a sensible tidying up and I do not object to it in principle. I shall certainly not press any objections to a Division, but I have some apprehensions about this being considered a crumb that can be thrown to licensees to stem the strong tide in favour of major reform of licensing laws, especially in respect of public houses.
It might be appropriate for me to declare — I have done so before — my interest in the licensed trade. I run a small company with five public houses, of which I am licensee. None of those houses is affected by the measure, because none of them has either an extended hours order or a special hours certificate. I am perhaps unique in the House in that I have personally managed a public house with an extended hours order. I did so for four years. I was encouraged by the police to take out a special order. They

were objecting to the fact that I was regularly applying for special orders of exemption to extend my normal hours for the functions that I was then running in my public house.
There is a curious anomaly in the Licensing Act 1964 which excludes the three days — Good Friday, Maundy Thursday and Easter eve — with which we are concerned in the Bill. Therefore, I welcome the measure, which was introduced in the other place, because it will have a tidying-up effect. However, we shall have to be careful because there is clearly a need to look at the question in the round.
There is growing and increasing pressure upon Members of Parliament and the Government to introduce major legislation on licensing matters. I know that you have been extremely tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing us to speak a little widely today on the measure. That is perhaps because we have too few opportunities in this House to speak on the need for the reform of licensing legislation.
I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will also widen his remarks, because I am a member of an organisation which is known under the acronym of FLAG — Flexi-Law Action Group. It is a national organisation in which all the major trade interests are represented, from the National Union of Licensed Victuallers to the Brewers' Society, the National Association of Licensed House Managers and all sorts of people. We welcome all kinds of reform of the licensing law, and the Bill is one little piece of reform.
The measure will affect businesses other than public houses. Therefore, it is particularly relevant that FLAG should take an interest in the reform. We are keen to see major reforms and hope that we shall get them within the not too far distant future. We hope that the results of the review of the Scottish experiment, as it is called, will shortly be made known to us, and that there will be a positive reaction to the effect of the Scottish experiment, which was introduced following Dr. Clayson's report.
Special hours certificates and extended hours orders affect premises which provide musical entertainment — frequently live music and disco — and food at the same time, and those premises are frequented by the young. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about alcoholism, because it is the young who make most use of such premises, and they seem to have a good deal of money to spend on entertainment. They are perhaps the least responsible in the use of alcohol. Therefore, it is a proper matter for concern.
In supporting the measure, I look forward to major reforms coming before the House so that we may have a proper debate on licensing law reform and on permitted hours.

Mr. Clive Soley: I reiterate what I said in Committee. I shall not oppose the Bill, which is too small to have a dramatic effect. However, it involves flexibility of opening hours and the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) openly admitted that he saw it as a first step on the road to greater flexibility.
The problem with following that road is that all the evidence from around the world suggests that greater flexibility leads to greater abuse. My message to the House is that, although I am not against more flexibility in opening hours, I oppose tinkering with licensing hours in


the absence of a national alcohol policy to deal with the problem of abuse. Conservative Members speak with great eloquence and at considerable length about the advantages of the Bill to the trade, but they do not take into account the consequences of the increased availability of alcohol.

Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman shows a proper concern for alcoholism. However, does he agree that the book by Davies and Walsh called "Alcohol Problems and Alcohol Control in Europe" suggests that permitted hours are but a minor factor among the causes of alcohol abuse and alcoholism?

Mr. Soley: The overall evidence is that greater availability leads to more problems. The book says that there is evidence to suggest that greater flexibility can lead to more responsible drinking. I have said previously that that can happen. The problem is that when we tinker with one aspect, such as flexibility of opening hours, and use Bills as steps towards something more, without taking other necessary actions, we run risks.
If Conservative Members do not give greater attention to the problems caused by alcohol abuse — we are dealing with a major drug which has a far bigger effect than heroin on our society, in terms of the number of deaths and injuries, social problems and so on—they will run into considerable opposition from hon. Members who know about the problems caused by alcohol abuse.

Mr. Greg Knight: Is not the hon. Gentleman overstating his case? The Bill deals with only six hours in a year.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me when I said that I would not oppose the Bill because it was such a minor measure. I went on to pick up the comments of the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, who said that the Bill was a step towards more flexible licensing hours. I said that that was not a bad thing in itself, but that it was a dangerous course to follow in the absence of an alcohol policy.

Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman raises a fundamental and important point which the licensed trade views with great concern. He mentioned availability of liquor, but we are debating a Bill applying to outlets such as hotels, licensed entertainment establishments, cafes and public houses — all places where responsible proprietors supervise drinking.
The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the enormous growth in the number of off-licences, which have increased by 11,000 to nearly 42,000 in the past 10 years. Perhaps many supermarkets are fairly responsible, but far too many off-licences—often they are little more than corner shops, and even garages are involved now—sell drink far too readily and often to children who are under age. That ought to be stamped out.

Mr. Soley: If it were in order I would treat the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside to a repeat of previous speeches in which I have emphasised that availability has become a major problem, primarily because of the introduction of supermarkets into the licensed business. My complaint against the licensed trade is not that it is unaware of the problem, but that it often deals with the problem by throwing out the people who are the problem. Not long ago the House passed legislation to give licensees the power to restrict access to people who have troubled them in the past. The trade tries to deal with the problem

by keeping people with an alcohol problem outside licensed premises on the streets, where those people are a problem to other people. The trade must look at the matter more carefully.
I well understand why the trade calls for such a measure, and I do not intend to oppose it. However, the trade is not yet considering sufficiently seriously the problems caused by alcohol abuse, which, as the Minister knows, is increasing dramatically. The Scottish evidence is much more ambivalent than the hon. Gentleman made out. There is certainly a small increase in cirrhosis of the liver, which is one of the best indicators of an increase in alcohol abuse. In future the hon. Gentleman must Day greater attention to that problem, and to the various bodies which are far less well funded than the brewing industry, the Wine and Spirit Association and the Scotch Whisky Association, but which are expected to pick up the pieces of a major national problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Until this afternoon little has been said about the Bill during its passage, which has surprised me slightly because any measure which deals with entertainment on days of religious significance would normally be expected to meet with comment, if not opposition, from those anxious to preserve traditional respect for holy days. Perhaps it is a sign of the times that no such qualms have been voiced.
It has been said that the Bill is a modest measure, which is how many people will regard it; and it is also true that it will have only a limited effect. It relates to the hours during which certain licensed premises and registered private members' clubs can serve liquor and provide entertainment on the three days of the Easter weekend. Its effect would be to allow, but not require, licensed premises and registered clubs which provide entertainment and food to serve alcohol for the same hours on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Saturday as apply on a normal weekday. Those premises, instead of closing their doors at midnight on Maundy Thursday and Easter Saturday and at 10.30 pm on Good Friday, would be permitted to remain open until 1 am, if they hold an extended hours order, or 2 am — 3 am in parts of London—with a special hours certificate.
The purpose of the liquor licensing legislation is to control and regulate the sale of alcohol. However, the particular restrictions which apply to late night opening over the Easter weekend, and which have the dual effect of prohibiting the sale of alcohol and the provision of entertainments, arise solely because of the religious significance of those days. Successive Governments have taken the line that it must be a matter for individual conscience, and the will of the House, whether restrictions relating to days of particular importance in the Christian calendar should be relaxed. I said in Standing Committee that the Government are neutral on this Bill and that we have no objection to its proceeding on to the statute book, if that is the will of the House, as it seems to be. That remains our position.
The proposals in the Bill will affect only the minority of premises licensed for the sale of alcohol. It can be argued that even this modest measure does no more than bring the licensing legislation into line with that governing other forms of entertainment. Neither the theatres nor the cinema licensing legislation, for example, imposes any


restrictions on the opening of those premises on Maundy Thursday, Good Friday or Easter Saturday. Nor are there any specific restrictions relating to the Easter weekend on the opening of casinos. Thus, it is lawful for casinos to be open from 2 pm to 4 am every day, except on Saturday, when the terminal hour is 3 am in London and 2 am elsewhere in England and Wales. It cannot be said, therefore, that the relaxations on licensed premises in this Bill are inconsistent with other areas of licensing, for which the Government have overall responsibility.
There will be those in the House and outside who will criticise this minor legislation on the grounds that it does not go far enough and that we need more radical reform of the licensing law rather than a piecemeal approach affecting only some days — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] My tired old ears have picked up the odd "Hear, hear" from the Benches behind me. I have some sympathy with that argument, but it should not prevent us from considering minor amendments when they are shown to be desirable.
As to the more general reform of the law—I refer here to the much-debated issue of flexible licensing hours —hon. Members will be aware that it is currently under review. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that, before reaching a decision, he will wish to consider carefully the reports of the surveys conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the effects of the extension of permitted hours brought about in Scotland by the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976, together with all relevant data on the indicators of alcohol abuse. The full report, which will include the results of a survey of public house licensees about their attitude to licensing legislation, will be published later in the year.
The Bill proposes modest relaxations for three days of the year, enabling those seeking entertainment to purchase alcohol for a few more hours, until 1 am or 2 am. As I said, the Government are neutral. Whether the restrictions on the supply of alcohol and the provision of entertainment should be relaxed is a matter for the individual choice of hon. Members, but if, as one suspects, this Bill gets its Third Reading today and becomes law, the Government will certainly not oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Reform of the House of Lords Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Dr. John Marek: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Dr. Marek: First, may I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the message from the Queen, and I apologise to him for detaining him in the House on what is now a procedural matter.
The reform of the House of Lords has been talked about for many decades, but nothing has been done. The last serious attempt to reform the House of Lords was with the Parliament Bill in the late 1960s, which was roundly defeated by a coalition across party lines. I should say that I do not believe it was a good measure.
However, it is inexcusable that, in what we call a democracy, one of the two main legislative Chambers is not an elected body. If one is born in the right bed, one can take part in the legislature of the country. If one is not born in the right bed—that includes everyone in this House and, except for about 1,500 people, everyone else in the country—one cannot take part in the legislative process. We must start to consider how to make Britain a true and total democracy. Unless we reform the House of Lords, we cannot call ourselves a complete democracy.
In "Vacher's", one sees a list of members of the House of Lords. There are three peers of blood royal, two archbishops and 25 dukes. I could spend much time talking about the 25 dukes, but I shall not. There are 28 marquesses and 157 earls and countesses. As far as I am aware, none of those people has any special — [Interruption.]
The thunderclap that we have just heard leads me to believe that I should tread carefully during the next few minutes.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Divine retribution.

Dr. Marek: None of those people has any special abilities to take part in our legislative process.
After that, we come, in order of seniority, to 104 viscounts, 24 bishops and 864 barons and baronesses. Well over 1,000 members of the other place are there because of fortuitous circumstances. The exceptions are the life peers and peeresses, who may be appointed because of some expertise or ability, or the help that they can give the Government of the day or, more rarely, the Opposition of the day, in running the business in the other place. This cannot be the right way to proceed in a democracy.
One has to pay a price for democracy. Members of the legislature have to be elected. One may end up with members who may not be the best that one could possibly have. However, in a democracy, election is the only way. This House is not perfect. I am not perfect and I do not think that any hon. Member would say that he was perfect, in command of all arguments and could give an unbiased


and honest judgment on any matter. We all fall down on occasions. On the other hand, we have been elected, and we have the trust of the electorate that for one Parliament they will expect us to use our judgment to the best of our ability.
There are no electors to send anybody to the other place. It can introduce legislation, and change and impede legislation from this House. Out of the 1,000 Members in the other place, not many play a part. At the most, it is a couple of hundred, and not many are there day in and day out. I have been looking at the House of Lords Handards and I have found that two or three dozen Labour Members and five or six dozen from the Government Benches take a regular and active part in the proceedings there.
We can go two ways. Given that we want a democracy, and that there is something to be said for an elected system, should we abolish the House of Lords completely or should we try to make it an effective body? My party believes in total abolition of the House of Lords. If there were a Bill to that effect before the House, I would support it. However, it is not one of the major items of legislation that will be passing through the next Parliament under the next Labour Government. We can either make the House of Lords effective as a revising chamber, or we can abolish it completely.

Mr. Greg Knight: The hon. Gentleman has just said that his party's policy is to abolish the House of Lords, and if a Bill to that effect were introduced he would support it. How does he square that with an article that he wrote in the Western Mail on 22 February when he said, "Abolition will not do"?

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman apprehends my next point. I can square my remark. Abolition will not do, for one reason. I should like to see an effective revising chamber and I should like more elected members of either House to keep control over the Executive. I do not believe that 650 Members of Parliament are sufficient to control the Executive in all the many decisions that are taken. I am not saying that the decisions are taken unaccountably, but they are taken without elected Members knowing about them unless a particular Member has an interest in something and happens to be in the right place at the right time to ask the question. An elected representative may then be able to influence a decision. By and large, however, we have the Civil Service, quangos, boards and nominated bodies which run the country and it is impossible for 650 MPs and between 100 and 200 of their Lordships to try to keep effective control over the Executive and the Civil Service.
My view, which should command thought in the House, is that we need greater numbers. To achieve that, we should reform, rather than abolish, the House of Lords, although I should be happy to agree to its abolition, simply because we do not have democracy there. Generally speaking, one must be born in the right bed to be a member of that place.
The House of Commons is the primary legislative Chamber, so that the House of Lords must be the reforming Chamber. Therefore, the Lords should not challenge this House, and for that reason the powers of the other place can remain roughly as they are, although I could be persuaded that the powers should be changed in either direction.
An important reason why this House keeps its primacy is that it is based on representation, on the single-Member constituency, and Members of the Commons have contact with their electors and are responsible to them.
If we wish to keep this House as the primary instrument for legislation, we must do something about elections to the House of Lords. One method would be to have large constituencies so that Members of the House of Lords could not be identified with any area. To achieve that, we would need a form of proportional representation. For that reason, the Bill suggests the single transferable vote for elections to the other place. PR is beloved of the alliance parties, and it is a pity that Liberal and SDP Members are not here to discuss this matter.
What will happen if the Bill is not placed on the statute book and nothing is done about the matter? Sooner or later there will be a Government with a sufficient majority to get their way. Such an Administration may go for total abolition. But if the House of Lords were not abolished, it might be changed in such a radical way that there would not be a general consensus in this House about its composition. It is likely in the future that a Government with such a majority will be in power.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that the House of Lords needs reforming. We should do it by means of a consensus which would gain general acceptance from the people. We could do that even in a Parliament such as this, in which the Government have an enormous majority. If we do not do it, sooner or later —because it needs to be done—a Government with an enormous majority may do something which we do not like.

Mr. Michael Portillo: I scarcely recognise the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), so brief has he been in his remarks today. I congratulate him on presenting his case in a few minutes. I was used to sitting opposite him in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill, and in those deliberations we suffered long hours at his hands—or should I say at his mouth?—as he kept us in our places, sometimes entertained but sometimes less entertained.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What a dreadful thing to say of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Portillo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wrexham on making such a brief contribution today, yet putting his points lucidly. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wishes to speak, so I shall not detain the House for long because I am sure that the great British public are looking forward to hearing from him. I am sometimes perplexed how it is that the Labour party's first instinct when faced with a problem is to turn to constitutional reform. I fear that it does so with a disregard for the consequences. When the previous Labour Government found themselves in difficulty, constitutional reform was their immediate knee-jerk reaction.
There was disagreement over whether Britain should be in the EEC and the Labour Government's reaction was to hold a referendum. Although that was a constitutional innovation, that did not bother them, as it got them off the hook on which they found themselves. Subsequently, they had problems in maintaining a majority with their allies in


the House. That meant that they were willing to contemplate setting up assemblies for Scotland and Wales and to hold more referendums. Again, they acted without regard to whether those actions would be good for the long-term constitutional health of the United Kingdom. They found a way of getting themselves out of a tight corner politically and they were willing to throw constitutional tradition and history to the winds in the interest of self-preservation.
The Labour party is proposing once more either the abolition of the House of Lords—as I understand it, that would make the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) perfectly happy—or the reform that is proposed in the Bill, which amounts to abolition and the establishment of a different House.
Given the present state of the Labour party, it is interesting to look for clues in ascertaining what led it to devise such a scheme. The first clue is that the Bill proposes that the new House should be elected regularly every five years. We are moving from a position in which a Parliament has a maximum life to one in which elections fall regularly on a certain date. Why should the Labour party want that? I suspect that it knows that it will lose general election after general election and that it is looking for an opportunity in mid-term, when there are protest votes that we know about of a sort that I believe were displayed even yesterday, to have a different House elected and possibly to capitalise on the votes that may be swinging around. In effect, it is a call by the Labour party for a recount. If it loses a general election, it wants a second bash at it when it has a second House. I understand that the Labour party is keen on second bashes. I believe that it called for a recount in the Brecon and Radnor by-election but to no avail.
The second possible clue lies in the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. When these authorities are abolished, the Labour party will be deprived of great areas where a protest vote could be lodged between general elections. Areas of control were passed to the Labour party by those who wished to register their feelings in a mid-term contest. With the abolition of these authorities the Labour party is left wondering how it will be able to make mischief during the long periods when Labour Members have to sit on the Opposition Benches, the Labour party having lost the previous general election once again.
I find many features of the Bill surprising although I understand why the Labour party has embarked upon it. If the hon. Member for Wrexham wishes to intervene to explain what he means by the passage in the Bill which reads:
the exercise of political power, much of it in secret, by those who do not derive their authority from the people",
I shall be willing to allow him do so. I cannot understand what that means. The House of Lords is, for the moment, the more public of the two Houses in this Parliament. It is the one which is now seen by those who watch television.

Dr. Marek: I shall intervene, only briefly as we have only seven minutes in which to debate the Bill. I am not suggesting that the House of Lords exercises power in secret. However, the Executive, the Civil Service and other bodies exercise their power in secret. That is the meaning of the preamble.

Mr. Portillo: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will think, on reflection, that the drafting of his Bill was slightly confusing on that point. I am grateful to him for setting us right.
I have spoken to many of my constituents since the proceedings of the House of Lords have been televised and many of them say that they realise now for the first time what a splendid place the House of Lords is as presently constituted. They realise for the first time that the other place has a residue of expertise to deploy on important issues.
That reminds me of the time when I was involved in the consideration of a patents Bill, which came before the House about nine years ago. It would not be unfair to hon. Members to say that at that time there were very few Members who had an understanding of the subject. However, in the House of Lords there happened to be two or three of the leading world experts on patents, who were able to bring their expertise to bear. They gave the Bill a much more mature and thorough consideration than it might otherwise have received. This is only a small example of what happens so often with their Lordships.
Of course, their Lordships do not attend every debate in the way that hon. Members do in the House and their interest in a particular subject is not always 100 per cent. Their Lordships are distinguished in different fields. The majority were given seats in the House of Lords because they had distinguished themselves. The Labour party continues to nominate people to that House on that basis — often because they have a political expertise and because, as working peers, they will help the Labour party and show the same talents and abilities that they showed either in this House or outside politics.
I think that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and I have the same desire at heart — to safeguard democracy. Those are the terms in which the hon. Gentleman couched his argument and I have taken his words at face value, something I find it hard to do. The Labour party is afraid of the independence of the House of Lords. During the past few years, Labour Members have seen that the House of Lords is willing to consider carefully and independently the legislation that comes from this House. Constitutional reform by the abolition of the House of Lords would merely be the prelude to a much more devastating constitutional reform. With the House of Lords out of the way, our ability to stop that devastating change would be that much more restricted.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has introduced this Bill. The House should promote a public debate on the existence of the House of Lords. I am surprised that Conservative Members oppose the Bill. However, when the Leader of the House informed the House of the Queen's consent to the Bill, I detected some note of resignation in his voice, because the House of Lords has been more trouble to this Government than it has been to other Governments. But for the House of Lords, the local government abolition legislation might have travelled much further. That demonstrates not the democratic credentials of the other place or its desire to promote democracy but how reactionary the Government are with their majority in the House of Commons and how determined they are to force the destruction of democracy in so many aspects of life.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the view that, in the absence of an effective Opposition to the Government in this Chamber, the House of Lords has assumed the mantle of a de facto Opposition?

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber, but he obviously has not had a chance to hear the results of the Brecon and Radnor by-election. I think that his party understands that there is enormous opposition both inside and outside Parliament to the Government.
When I show guests and people from overseas around the Houses of Parliament and explain to them how the House of Lords came into existence, they cannot believe that in a democratic society we hand legislation to people whose sole fortune in life has been to be born into a particular family or at a particular time. Even worse is the patronage that goes with the make-up of the House of Lords through the appointment of life peers. My guests say to me, "Why does your country, which prides itself on being so democratic and having a democratic parliamentary system, allow this ridiculous anachronism to continue?" To allow hereditary peers to have a say in the legislative process is a ridiculous anachronism. As far as I am aware, hardly any country allows a hereditary form of government. Why should we allow it here?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham has done us a great service in putting the Bill forward. I might have some disagreements with my hon. Friend on the methods of election of a second Chamber or on the justification for having a second Chamber. I very much agree with him, however, that we cannot justify in a democratic society allowing this undemocratic obstacle to be in our path.
Every time that there has been a major constitutional reform it has been as a result of the House of Lords' obstructionism, be it the people's Budget of 1910 or the other, later examples. It is important that that obstruction be removed. I firmly believe that a future Labour Government, elected as they will be at the next election, will be obstructed by the House of Lords, because the House of Lords represents economic and social interests that are fundamentally opposed to the interests that the Labour party represents and that a future Labour Government will represent after the general election.
I find it surprising that none of the—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 16 July.

Orders of the Day — STANDING CHARGES (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES (POLITICAL DONATIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — POLITICAL PARTIES (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY (COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — PLANNING AUTHORITIES (RESTRICTION OF LIABILITY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — RECREATIONAL GARDENING BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — GREATER EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — BUDGET BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO FUEL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CHOICE OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — ROAD RACES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977 (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — MINIMUM WAGES ETC. BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — REFORM BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES (PROCEDURE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — YOUNG PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — YOUTH CHARTER BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — HANDICAPPED YOUNG PERSONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (POLITICAL EXPENDITURE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — HORSES AND PONIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — MEDICAL ACT 1983 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (MINIMUM AGE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONERS' HEATING AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — CROWN IMMUNITY (REMOVAL FROM WORKPLACES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — CONSUMER GUARANTEE PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As the Bill has not been printed, I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FROM GARAGE PREMISES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputry Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — CO-OWNERSHIP OF FLATS BILL

Order for Second Rading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill has not been printed, so I shall not propose the Question. Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — TENANTS' PROTECTION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE (SERVICE OF NOTICES) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[David Clark.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must point out to the House that it is unusual to take a Committee stage immediately after Second Reading on a Friday.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [26 April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY IN HOME OWNERSHIP BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — MINERS' AMNESTY (GENERAL PARDON) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Friday 25 October.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill?

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, Sir.

Second Reading deferred to Friday 25 October.

Orders of the Day — Exporters (Government Aid)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Michael Morris: This debate is, in a sense, round three in the Conservative Back Benchers' attempt to kill off the Byatt report and to persuade the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get his act together and produce an export strategy. Rounds one and two went to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior). As luck would have it, the timing of the debate may prove to be particularly apposite because the topic of the Government's help to exporters is reported to be on the Cabinet agenda, and at the beginning of the week we had the announcement of 200,000 new training places for our young people, which was particularly welcome. I should like a good number of those 200,000 young people to be in manufacturing industry and helping to improve our exports.
Seventeen years ago, before I came to the House, I wrote a pamphlet for the Bow Group, called "Helping the Exporter". Not a lot has changed since then, I am sorry to report. In that pamphlet we recommended changes in finance, targeting and organisation. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have worked in the far east and I now regurlarly visit south-east Asia, my last visit, which was in January, being to Sri Lanka and Indonesia, with a brief stop-over in Malaysia.
I have seen business at the sharp end and I have the utmost praise for our people both in the private sector and in the diplomatic service. They all do a fantastic job in the steaming heat of the east. They have to contend with competition from France, Germany, Korea and Japan. The tragedy is that when they return home they seem to have to engage in endless hours of negotiation with the British Government.
The record of our three leading competitors gives a clear picture of what we are up against. In 1983 our aid programme was less than half that of France, Germany or Japan. We tied 54 per cent. of our aid to British manufactures while Japan tied 64 per cent., Germany 66 per cent. and France no less than 82 per cent. to their manufactures.
For years, we have believed in direct grants. Our competitors have sold on the basis of soft loans, thus making the money go further. We are very slow to learn. For example, our mission in Indonesia reported nine months ago that the Indonesian Government would accept only soft loans and not grant aid. We insisted on trying to put together a package of grant-aided work and lost the power project for which we were pitching. We have only just begun to respond to that clear message from the Indonesian Government. I hope and trust that Minister Habibi of Indonesia will be made especially welcome when he visits this country next week.
Our overall budget for soft loans is currently £66 million. I believe that China alone warrants £100 million. That is the kind of amount that our competitors are directing to that market. Against our £66 million, France and Germany have more than $1 billion available for soft loans and Japan has $2·5 billion. The contrast between those figures would be laughable if it were not so serious.
Why do we always have to match our competitors? Why cannot we take the initiative for once and go for the business? I do not blame the Overseas Development Administration for that. It is not the ODA's area of expertise. It should be a function of the Department of Trade and Industry and the budget should be controlled by that Department.
The evidence given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, suggested that management were being asked to achieve the impossible. They were told that they had to break even and to pay off old debt and yet be competitive with foreigners when interest rates in this country were at an all time high. I acknowledge that there is now a consensus rate but not everyone abides by it, especially for capital projects. When the ECGD increases its premium rate to particular countries—for example, Thailand, which is a category B market and thus has a good credit rating—the countries concerned may regard it as a slight. I doubt whether MITI, the Japanese equivalent or COFACE, the French equivalent, have to go through the procedures that beset the ECGD.
As for the British Overseas Trade Board, what other country would cut its main promotional arm just when it is achieving success? The Government may say that a 2 per cent. real cut is not a great deal, but converted to Singapore dollars when exchange rates are moving it becomes a great deal more significant.
Perhaps I might relate the sorry tale of a small exporter in Nether Heyford in my constituency. This chap was unemployed but set up business on his own. His company, Petalgold Ltd., provides golf equipment. Golf happens to be one of my hobbies, but the Japanese love their golf. My constituent showed initiative and exhibited in the sports show in Japan in 1985 and collected orders to the tune of just over £30,000. He applied to go on the 1986 fair and was told that it had been cancelled. We shall never succeed if we approach the matter on a one year in, one year out basis.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been helpful to the footwear industry. It is a difficult industry as it comprises many small firms. It normally shows at six trade fairs but, because of the cut in the British Overseas Trade Board, it has been told that it can show at only three. That is not fair treatment and it does not help British exporters.
Some people say that we cannot afford more, but I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee which investigates twice a week what has happened to public money. We have seen huge losses and examples of misspent money. We have received evidence about big crashes such as De Lorean, and await detail about medium-sized losses such as Lear Fan and unknown losses such as the Sinclair C5 vehicle. There are dozens of examples of public money going down the drain, a significant amount of it having come from the Department of Trade and Industry.
People in high places tell me that civil engineering contracts produce little benefit to the United Kingdom. I have asked for some detailed figures on a contract that arose out of some discussions that I had in Indonesia in January—the Marika Hydra project. It is a joint British-Swedish project. Its value is £321 million, of which the United Kingdom's share is £175 million. It falls into five categories—civil engineering of £108 million, of which

the direct UK content is £75 million, mechanical and electricals of £51·5 million, of which the UK content is £44·6 million, design of £5 million, of which the United Kingdom content is £4·9 million, supervision of £6·5 million, which is all to the UK, and third-country purchases of £2 million. That produces a total UK content of £131 million out of £173 million—a ratio of 70:30. It will create employment in the UK but, on 13 May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor wrote to the chairman of Heavy Electrical Machinery saying that, despite further evidence that that body had sent to the Chancellor about the benefit of follow-on orders, he had
asked my officials to study further the details you have presented but I fear my immediate reaction is that your evidence contains nothing to alter the approach we have adopted since the preparation of the Byatt report in 1982.
That response is not adequate.
The Treasury is bad, but the Department of Trade and Industry has also been dilatory since 1979. I dropped in on Sri Lanka in January and discussed the Samanala Wewa project. I raised the issue with the Foreign Office 18 months ago and again in January. The Prime Minister discussed it when she was in Sri Lanka and armed with detailed figures 12 weeks ago. There has still been no decision.
There might be people in high places who think that companies such as Balfour Beatty get an unfair share of ATP, but they are the companies with get up and go. Contracts are too often lost because that element is missing. They are also lost because of lack of funding. It is not enough to have the right goods in the right place at the right time. Hawker Siddeley has given evidence to the Department concerning five contracts that it has missed. I just hope that the Samanala Wewa project does not go the same way.
I realise that my hon. Friend will be restricted, not least as his right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is away in south-east Asia. Normally, I would have fulsome praise for the activities of my right hon. Friend, but I cannot help but reflect that Ramadan has just finished, that there is now the "Eid" festival in that part of the world, and that trying to sell in south-east Asia now is like trying to sell in London during the Christmas recess.
It is time that the Government got their act together in areas such as south-east Asia. We need to recognise and understand the legitimate aspirations of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, and that quantum leaps in technology are being made in Indonesia and Malaysia. We must recognise the sheer size of trade with Singapore. As long as we have a system of five different decision-making bodies — the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury, the ODA, the Foreign Office and ECGD—we shall fail. We need to be single-minded.
We should set up, perhaps on a trial basis and perhaps just in south-east Asia, the post of trade commissioner for the region. The concept was originally used in the old Board of Trade, and it could be developed. I can envisage a senior man aged about 50, supported by an assistant and a secretary, at a cost of about £250,000. He or she, experienced in trade, could be responsible for establishing a strategy in a region and ensuring its implementation.
My hon. Friend has been tolerant, as always, and I hope that he will show a degree of understanding. I end with a quotation taken from a publication that I shall refer to shortly. It says:


The Malayan market—great potentialities for British trade and manufacturers—it is the key position which if held and consolidated will ensure for the future a dominant position for British Commerce and Manufacture".
The source of the quotation is "The Crown Colonist" and the date is April 1931. Does nothing change in Britain?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The short answer is yes, it does. I hope to give my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), who has great expertise and enthusiasm in export matters, some reassurance that the Government are flexible in their approach to these questions, and that we are anxious to do whatever we can, within our budgetary constraints, to help to improve the performance of our exporters.
Before dealing with the specific points of my hon. Friend's speech, I should like to put it to him that we are talking today about a job creation programme. Much attention is being focused, within our national political debate, on the need to create more jobs in the United Kingdom, and I put it to the House that there is one job creation programme that has been singularly undiscussed over the past few months and years. It is that number of jobs which can be created by increasing our share of world trade.
We are told that the United Kingdom had about a 14 per cent. share of world trade in manufactures, goods and services in 1964, but by 1978 our share had gone down to 8 per cent. Each 1 per cent. represents a loss of about 250,000 jobs. Therefore, it can be argued that in a job loss programme during that period we exported 1·5 million British jobs. The Department of Trade and Industry and my hon. Friend have a common cause and should combine in trying to achieve one objective. We should recognise that the biggest job creation programme on which the United Kingdom can embark is that programme which, through increases in competitiveness, can help us to import back into the United Kingdom those 1·5 million British jobs. When the Government go on and on about competitiveness, they do so on the basis of a job creation programme.
My hon. Friend said that his remarks were topical. They are very topical in the political context. One of the more regrettable and unfortunate problems of timetabling in the House is that we have not had time in recent months to discuss this very important job creation programme.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. Exporting and increasing our percentage of world trade are vital parts of the nation's economic activity. I know that, like my hon. Friend, many representatives of industry are concerned about the changes to some of the export services that are supervised by the British Overseas Trade Board. The debate provides the opportunity to reaffirm that the Government remain committed to a programme of export support and to explain clearly our policy approach.
Government support for exporters takes three main forms. The first comprises the export services under the guidance of the BOTB, and that is the area on which a major part of our debate is focused. The BOTB services offer a wide range of support. Some provide information; others, such as the trade fair and mission programmes, provide practical and financial help for companies seeking to establish themselves in overseas markets; others provide help in rather specialised areas such as foreign technical requirements and export documentation.
The other principal forms of Government support, which must not be forgotten, are the aid and trade provisions to which my hon. Friend referred and other support for major projects, along with the services of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Let me spell out the main objectives and policies of the export promotion programme under the guidance of the BOTB. The main objective is to use the resources to stimulate additional exports — a point which is sometimes lost on some of the Department's client companies — which are exports that would not have come about without the export services and assistance offered by the Department and the BOTB.
A further aim is to cut the cost of breaking into new markets by providing companies with certain information and technical services that are most efficiently provided centrally and using the unique resources available to Government. The services are basically available to all companies and cover all overseas markets. We do not want to say, "Whitehall knows best where a firm should sell its goods or services." However, to be cost-effective, we must achieve some selectivity by type of firm, by market and by concentrating on the period when help is most needed. For example, there is, to a large extent, concentration on small and medium-sized firms.
Trade fair support is particularly attractive to smaller firms and nearly three quarters of users have fewer than 200 employees. It is also more effective to concentrate support on newcomers to markets, in the belief that, once companies are established in markets, the operation should not need a continuing subsidy from public funds.
My hon. Friend mentioned the example of a new, young and vigorous company going to Japan, taking part in a trade fair, but not being able to follow that up with a second visit. I understand that, although we have to look carefully at those who may make more than the number of visits that our budget can bear, our limit, which is interpreted fairly loosely, of about four visits comes close to satisfying our objective of giving firms a sufficient initial boost to allow them to work under their own devices and finances subsequently.
I have already said that some activities are more efficiently carried out centrally to exploit, for example, the unique information and assistance network provided by the commercial sections of our embassies and high commissions abroad. We aim not to compete with the private sector but to operate in other areas to achieve our objectives. For example, much of the detailed operation of the trade fair and mission programmes is handled by chambers of commerce and trade associations. Where export market research is needed, we contribute to the costs of professional research by the private sector. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office overseas posts are encouraged to make as much use as possible of banks, local chambers of commerce and British business groups.
On the question of organisation, when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade returns to the United Kingdom I will draw his attention to the appropriate section in Hansard in which my hon. Friend described his interesting idea about regional trade commissioners. My hon. Friend will not expect me to give an instant answer to that proposal. Although the idea has been expressed before, it is certainly worth putting to my right hon. Friend, who will undoubtedly wish to reply at an opportune moment.
By way of emphasising the importance of the various forms of support, I wish to say that, given the rapid improvement in our performance as exporters, it is correct for the Government to see where they can best help those who most need help in this period of general improvement. It is surely correct for us to assess the targeting of our aid and its efficacy, and to take what we may discover from the monitoring of our measures and put it into any amendments we may wish to make in future.
In that regard, I shall now turn to soft loans, with which my hon. Friend dealt at some length, and aid and trade provision. The Government recognise that some countries may prefer loans to grants supplemented by export credits. We are discussing with the financial community what mechanisms might be devised for providing soft loans. I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking top flight advice from the City. We may wish to determine the role that the banks or capital markets can play in providing the funds that may be necessary, as already happens with ECGD-backed contracts, thereby reducing calls on public expenditure. As ever, there is a place for the private and public sectors to work in partnership. I can tell my hon. Friend that ATP support is now available for China, but at present only in the usual ATP grant form. Moreover, the funds available are limited within the present ATP provision.
On ECGD, my hon. Friend pointed out the risk of offending some nations if the league table, in terms of the classification of cover proffered, is presented clumsily. That is a serious point for the Department of Trade and Industry to consider, and I shall certainly draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is a perfectly worthy point for my hon. Friend to make, as he is interested only in defending the interests of British exporters who may feel offended by downgrading or the proclamation of second division status. We shall certainly study that.
Let me stress that the Government have twin objectives. They are firmly committed both to promoting United Kingdom project interests, and to the need for greater international restraint and openness in the use of soft finance. The latter is inevitably a long-term objective. We recognise that in the meantime British companies pursuing project business on the international market must be protected against the practices of other Governments in softening the terms of finance. The projects and export

policy division of the Department of Trade and Industry was set up with the specific purpose of focusing Government support for firms seeking worthwhile project business overseas. The main instruments of financial support in addition to the ATP are ECGD's fixed rate export finance scheme, and the overseas projects fund from which support can be provided on a repayable basis towards certain pre-contractual costs.
I began my speech by describing why improvement in our foreign trade performance is important for job creation. May I put on the record some data that have been scandalously under-reported during the past few weeks? Exports of goods and services were the fastest-growing component of United Kingdom output in 1984, together with fixed investment. They are forecast to continue to grow strongly in 1985. Exports of non-oil goods and manufactures—this is an area of current interest to the House—reached all-time highs in volume terms in the first few months of this year. Excluding oil and erratic items, the volume growth for exports of manufactures in 1984 was 10·5 per cent., and for the three months to May the volume was 11 per cent. up on the comparable period last year. Incidentally, on the same basis, the volume of imports has increased by only 5 per cent.
The House will agree that it would be helpful if those who comment on the trade figures pointed out that these dramatic figures are probably the biggest increases for 10 years. Of course, exporters have achieved those impressive figures, not the Government. Government support measures can contribute on the margin, and I should stress that our contribution is still useful, especially in helping small firms. Recent studies to examine the impact of several BOTB services suggest that companies using them in one year will win additional export business of more than £2 billion.
I have every reason to conclude on a positive note. I agree with my hon. Friend that increasing our share of world trade will help us to embark on the best possible job creation programme. I welcome my hon. Friend's positive suggestions. If he believes that there are some points to which I have not responded comprehensively this afternoon, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will get in touch with him when he returns to the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o' clock.